RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00409
INDEX NUMBER: 145.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he was discharged in the
grade of sergeant (E-4) or staff sergeant (5) rather than airman
(E-2).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied promotion to staff sergeant and demoted on two
occasions for failure to repair due to his alcoholism. He has
been sober for the past 29 years and has dedicated his life to
helping others with alcoholism.
In support of the appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, and certified
addiction counselor certificate.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman
basic on 30 Nov 71 for a term of four years.
On 25 Feb 75, he received an Article 15, for failure to go to his
appointed place of duty on or about 5, 6 and 12 Feb 75. His
punishment consisted of reduction in grade from E-4 to E-3. On
2 Jul 75, the suspended reduction was vacated for the applicants
failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of
duty on or about 21 May and 25 Jun 75. He was permanently
reduced to the grade of E-3 with a new date of rank of 28 Mar 75.
He received another Article 15, on 24 Jul 75, for being absent
without leave on or about 15 Jul 75. His punishment consisted of
a reduction from E-3 to E-2, with a new date of rank of
29 Jul 75. On 8 Aug 75, he was honorably discharged in the grade
of airman (E-2).
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 22 Sep 10, that, on
the basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest
record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states that although the
applicant requests reinstatement of rank to either E-4 (sergeant)
or E-5 (staff sergeant), they found no documentation promoting
him beyond the rank of E-4. The applicant is not disputing the
legal correctness of the actions taken against him, nor does he
provide any evidence of an error or injustice.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 15 Sep 10, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
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 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-
2010-00409 in Executive Session on 5 Oct 10, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. --------------, Panel Chair
Ms. --------------, Member
Mr. --------------, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 May 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10.
------------
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841
For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion, and Vast potentialdemonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCOconsider for promotion. On 18 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03962 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED FORMER SERVICE MEMBER) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The service member received an overall rating of 9 on the APR rendered for the period 20 Jul 74 through 26 May 75 with a recommendation to promote. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01092
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 applicants Article 15, the referral...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05825
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05825 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on 4 Mar 13 be removed from his records. However, this error does not warrant setting aside the entire NJP as the applicant requests. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02310
On 6 Jan 10, he was driving when he dropped his cell phone. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01294
On his last duty day, his commander issued him an Article 15 without any warning. On 17 Aug 98, the applicants commander issued him nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCJM) for being absent from his place of duty without authority in violation of UCMJ Article 86 from on about 2 Jul 98 through on or about 23 Jul 98. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03988
On 11 Dec 85, the applicant received an honorable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While we acknowledge the applicants request to have her Staff Sergeant rank reinstated due to current weight management program standards, this board notes that standards in effect during the applicants service were the standards to be adhered to by all Air Force service members at that time.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03646
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF), she served satisfactorily in the higher grade of staff sergeant (E-5), in accordance with 10 U.S.C. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04278
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicants request to set aside his court-martial conviction and sentence. His allegation is based on a time discrepancy between a photograph showing a truck driving through the base gate alleged to be his and the blotter entry as well as the incident report. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01954
With that perspective, the commander exercised the discretion that the applicant granted him when the applicant accepted the Article 15 and found nonjudicial punishment appropriate in this case. The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and AFLOA/JAJM; however, other than his own assertions, the applicant has not presented any evidence that the commander abused his discretionary authority in imposing the nonjudicial punishment....