Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 01852 2
Original file (BC 2010 01852 2.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-01852-2

		COUNSEL:  NO
		
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 29, “Dates of Time Lost During This Period,” which reflects 27 April 1981 through 28 April 1981, be removed from his record.  

________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 11 Jan 11, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request to correct his records.  In the original case, the applicant contended the convening authority overturned his conviction by a special court-martial (SPCM) for an additional charge and one specification of failure to go, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  As such, he should not have any lost time annotated on his DD Form 214.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. 

On 18 March 2013, the applicant submitted a statement requesting reconsideration of his case.  As new evidence in support of his request, he submitted a special court-martial order, dated 31 July 1981, which indicates pursuant to the authority of paragraph 94, Manual of Court Martial (MCM), the findings of guilty for the additional charge and its specification in the SPCM of the applicant are set aside and the charge dismissed.  The applicant contends he was not in possession of this supporting documentation at the time of his original submission.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends approval, indicating the convening authority may for any reason or no reason set aside any finding of guilty and of the charge, which happened in this case.  On 31 July 1981, the SPCM set aside the finding and dismissed the applicant’s charge of Article 86.  Since the convening authority exercised his authority to set aside the Article 86 charge, there should be no reference to loss of time associated with the Article 86 charge on the DD Form 214.  

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit H.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit I).  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the new evidence provided by the applicant in support of his appeal, we believe that his request for lost time to be removed from his records should be granted.  The documentation provided by the applicant substantiates his assertion that the convening authority set aside the additional charge and its specification.  As such, we find the evidence sufficient and recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that Block 29, Dates of Time Lost During This Period, of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his honorable discharge on 15 December 1981, be corrected to reflect “None,” instead of “27 April 1981 – 28 April 1981”.  

________________________________________________________________



The following members of the Board considered the applicant’s request for reconsideration of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01852 in Executive Session on 29 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit F.  ROP, dated 13 Jan 10, with atchs. 
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Feb 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dtd 6 Mar 14.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd, 12 Mar 14.




                                   
		Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01169-2

    Original file (BC-2005-01169-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 18 May 06, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s above stated requests (Exhibit J). Prior to processing of the reconsideration, the applicant submitted an undated DD Form 149 with an attachment, dated 8 Oct 06, requesting reconsideration of his case and providing additional evidence (Exhibit L). Therefore, the request for a hearing is again not favorably...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01039

    Original file (BC-2010-01039.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01039 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His court-martial conviction be expunged from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his discharge in 1969, all records...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03278

    Original file (BC 2013 03278.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM states that if AFPC confirms that the member received an honorable discharge, the Board should set-aside his BCD. On 26 Feb 1957, the Air Force Board of Review found the approved finding of guilty and the sentence correct in law and fact. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02460

    Original file (BC 2013 02460.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02460 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded. On 15 Dec 86, the applicant was found guilty at a General Court-Martial of attempting to commit sodomy, committing indecent assaults upon two airmen, and for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with one airman....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00903

    Original file (BC 2013 00903.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His Article 15 received on 3 Jan 13 be set aside and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his record. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04859

    Original file (BC-2011-04859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant declined to petition the US Court of Military Appeals for a review of the decision of the Court of Military Review, making the findings and sentence in his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his court- martial conviction and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00850

    Original file (BC 2014 00850.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 August 2013, the CAAF set-aside the United States Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) decision to affirm the guilty finding with respect to the Charge and Specification 2, committing indecent acts upon the body of female under the age of 16, because the specification failed to state an offense and the government failed to provide notice of the missing element during its case- in-chief. Specifically, AF Form 4363, which states the reasons for the Promotion Propriety Action lists both...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02617

    Original file (BC 2013 02617.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02617 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The applicant’s sentence to a BCD was within legal limits. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR, dated 23 Jan 2014, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01092

    Original file (BC-2010-01092.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to staff sergeant during the 09E5 promotion cycle and received the promotion sequence number 15155.0, which incremented on 1 Aug 10. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial and states that the applicant has not provided evidence of a clear error or injustice. They state that should the Board remove the applicant’s Article 15, the referral...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-1987-03586

    Original file (BC-1987-03586.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 August 1984, applicant was discharged. In June 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his bad conduct discharge (Exhibit B). According to the record, the discharge board’s recommendation for discharge was made following a proceeding during which applicant was represented by counsel and his substantive and procedural rights were satisfied.