RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00852 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Separation Designator Number (SDN) "509" (Resignations, In 
Lieu of Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard 
or Unsatisfactory Performance) be removed from his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or 
Discharge. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He had an anxiety reaction after he received a traffic citation 
for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). There are no records of 
the DUI anywhere. Furthermore, his senior leadership wanted to 
make an example of him. 

 

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of 
his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, a letter from his co-worker and an article 
on Spin Codes. 

 

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant completed Officer Training School (OTS) and was 
commissioned as a second lieutenant on 31 March 1965. 

 

On 28 May 1965, the applicant was tried and found guilty by 
civilian authorities for driving under the influence of alcohol 
and being forcefully restrained. The court fined him $100.00 and 
sentenced him to two days in jail. 

 

On 3 June 1965, the applicant's commander issued him a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR) because his conduct during the arrest indicated a 
lack of respect for the law which caused civilian authorities to 
forcefully restrain him. He was also removed from the Human 
Reliability Program. 


On 7 June 1965, the applicant received a referral Officer 
Performance Report (OPR) due to his conduct. 

 

On 7 December 1965, a Medical Evaluation Board (MED) convened and 
diagnosed the applicant with a character disorder, specifically 
emotional instability reaction, passive aggressive type, severe. 
The MEB stated the applicant's disorder related back to his 
childhood and was manifested by childish manipulating activities, 
morbid resentment, stubbornness, irritability and fluctuating 
emotional attitudes, strong and poorly controlled hostility, 
guilt and anxiety, with phobic elements, somatic preoccupations 
and paranoid ideas. The MEB returned the applicant to duty and 
recommended he be considered for action under AFR 36-3, Officer 
Personnel, Administrative Discharge Procedures. 

 

On 10 January 1966, the applicant submitted his resignation under 
the provisions of AFR 36-12, para 16m, (Transfer to another 
service of the Armed Forces), stating he believed it would be in 
the best interest of everyone concerned that he tender his 
resignation. 

 

On 18 February 1966, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council rejected the applicant's resignation, stating that he had 
an unfulfilled service commitment and should apply under the 
provisions of AFR 36-12, para 16j, Resignations, in Lieu of 
Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard or 
Unsatisfactory Performance. 

 

On 2 March 1966, the applicant resubmitted his request under the 
provisions of AFR 36-12, para 16j, stating his resignation would 
be better for all concerned. On 25 March 1966, the Secretary of 
the Air Force accepted his resignation in lieu of further action 
under the provisions of AFR 36-3. He was honorably discharged 
from all appointments which he held in the United States Air 
Force, issued a SDN code of "509" (Resignations, in Lieu of 
Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard or 
Unsatisfactory Performance). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant's request and 
states that after a review of the documentation on file in the 
master personnel record, they did not find any errors or 
injustice in the processing of his discharge from the Air Force. 
He was given the appropriate SDN code of "509." In addition, he 
has not filed a timely petition; it has been more than 43 years 
since he was discharged from the Air Force. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The report issued on his arrest does not tell the whole story. 
There is no record of any DUI ever being issued in North Dakota. 
The ticket must have been dismissed or reduced or was not 
reported as a DUI. In support of his rebuttal, he provides a 
proposed outline for the Board of Veterans' Appeals, a statement 
from a former member of his wing, and a copy of his 10 August 
2009 DVA appeal. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, the Board 
excused the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded that his SDN code should be 
changed. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we 
do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by 
themselves, sufficiently persuasive. In this regard, we note the 
applicant resigned from active duty due to his misconduct, which 
interfered with his military service. He has not established to 
our satisfaction that his SDN code of “509” (Resignations, In 
Lieu of Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard 
or Unsatisfactory Performance) was then, or is now, inaccurate or 
unjust. In respect to the applicant’s contention there is no 
record of his DUI, we note that his military personnel records 
contain a 23 May 1965 Incident Report prepared by the Grand 
Forks, AFB security and law enforcement office indicating that he 
was charged with DWI and being held in the Grand Forks County 
Jail. In addition, on 4 June 1965, the applicant signed a sworn 
statement, acknowledging that on 28 May 1965, he was tried and 
pled guilty to the charge of DUI and was fined $100 dollars and 
two days in jail. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable 
consideration of the request. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 


 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or 
injustice; that the application was denied without a personal 
appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered 
upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not 
considered with this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2009-00852 in Executive Session on 27 October 2009, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 Aug 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Sep 09. 

 Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, dated 22 Sep 09.