Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00409
Original file (BC-2010-00409.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 
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 Board’s 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 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841

    Original file (BC-2012-01841.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 potential—demonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCO—consider for promotion.” On 18 Mar...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962

    Original file (BC 2013 03962.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05825

    Original file (BC 2013 05825.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC 2014 02310.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2013-01294.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On his last duty day, his commander issued him an Article 15 without any warning. On 17 Aug 98, the applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC 2014 03988.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s request to have her Staff Sergeant rank reinstated due to current weight management program standards, this board notes that standards in effect during the applicant’s service were the standards to be adhered to by all Air Force service members at that time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03646

    Original file (BC 2013 03646.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2011-04278.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC-2012-01954.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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....