AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
------
DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 2 7 1 0
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to
honorable. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which'
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Mr. Richard A.
Peterson, andT Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application
on 2 February 1 9 9 9 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 410,_U.S.C. 3-552.
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 1 4 9
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
Pafiel Chair
D E P A R T M E N T OF THE A I R FORCE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR F O R C E P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
.
R A N D O L P H AIR F O R C E B A S E . T E X A S
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AF€3 TX 78150-4713
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged fiom the Air Force 29
Jul82 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitability-Apathy, Defective Attitude) with an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge. She served 01 year 06 months and 16 days total
active service.
Reauested Action. The applicant is requesting her discharge be upgraded to honorable.
Basis for Request. Applicant does not claim an error or injustice in the discharge she received
she only states the reason it has been more than three years since the alleged injustice was
discovered is because of ignorance of the law. That she was not aware that the discharge aRer
one year of inactive service could be upgraded to honorable.
Facts. On 02 Jul82, applicant was notified by her commander that invsoluntary discharge
action had been initiated against her for defective attitude as evidenced by her failure to maintain
prescribed standards of military deportment and her inability to expand efforts constructively as
demonstrated by her receipt of Art 15 punishment on 14 Jan 82, for failure to go at the time
prescribed to her appointed place of duty. She received a second Art 15 on 18 Jun 82, for her
failure to go. In addition, during the period 05 Mar 82 to 08 Jun 82, she had received one Letter
of Reprimand, for having an unauthorized male guest in dormitory room aRer visiting hours, and
one Letter of Counseling, for being late to work. Applicant was advised she had a right to consult
counsel and the right to submit statements in her own behalf. On 13 Jul82 the applicant was
interviewed by the appointed individual evaluation officer. The evaluation officer found the
applicant to be unsuitable for fkrther military service because of a failure to maintain prescribed
standards of military deportment. Consistent with his findings, the evaluation officer
recommended discharge with a general discharge certificate. The case was reviewed by the base
legal office and found to legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority approved
the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be krnished a general discharge
certificate without probation.
Discussion. This case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or
irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. The discharge complies with directives in effect
at the time of her discharge. The records indicate member's military service was reviewed and
appropriate action was taken.
.
Recommendation. Applicant did not identifl any specific errors in the discharge processing nor
provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge she received. Accordingly, we
recommend applicant’s request be denied. She not has filed a timely request.
0Af!#C
JOHN C. WOOTEN, DAF
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Requested Action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00826
Evaluation in the disability evaluation system should have followed where the most likely recommendation would have been unfit for duty. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
The fact is, the applicant presented himself to mental health services during his period of service with apparently bonafide evidence of psychotic hallucinations/behavior and this was not considered in his discharge processing. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 17 Aug 98 for review and response....
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03518
Applicant was punished under Article 15, 19 Feb 82, for failure to report for duty; two Letters of Reprimand, dated 24 Aug 81 for failure to report to duty, and 13 Apr 83 for forgery with intent to defraud; and three Letters of Counseling, dated 19 Jul 81 for insufficient funds, 17 Jun 81 for substandard duty performance, and 29 May 81 for failure to follow proper leave procedures. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2002-0423
PLACE R h e i n - M a i n A i r B a s e , G E c. DATE 2 7 A u g u s t 1 9 8 7 I Referred for trial to the s p e c i a l t h i s h e a d a u a r t e r s d a t e d 24 August court-martial convened by S p e c i a l Order AA-17 19 . The 435 discharge. SSg d USAF Rhei n-Mai n C l i n i c/CC both recommend a UOTHC has received two APRs d u r i n g her c u r r e n t en1 i s t m e n t UNIT ED STATES AIR FORCE SEPTEMBER 18,1947 Right People.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03763
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00388
MY DISCHARGE WAS UNJUST BECAUSE MY CASE WAS NOT lHOROUC3HL.Y REVIEWED BY MY COMMANDER 7. Prior to the initiation of my discharge, I was told I would remain in the United States Air Force after my Commander passed judgment My Commander did not take any stripes away h m me, but she did suspend a stripe until 7 December 2005, and gave me fifteen days of extra duty. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for drug abuse, specifically, Vicodin.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . The discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 27 Oct 72 and directed that the applicant be fbrnished an undesirable discharge certificate without probation and rehabilitation. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.