RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIS FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS FEB
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02727
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to
honorable, and, that her separation and reenlistment eligibility
(RE) codes be changed. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and
denied the applicant's request for upgrade of her discharge
(Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant f o r
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 decision of
the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and has
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. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Mr. Patrick R.
Wheeler, and Mrs. Margaret A. Zook considered this application on
5 Jan 99 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C . AFDRB Brief
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding AFDRB Brief
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 0 7 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03148 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable so that she will be eligible to pursue her education under the Montgomery GI Bill. We therefore recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit C. AFDRB Brief.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02986
On 19 May 97, applicant was advised of her commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for her alleged misconduct in violation of Article 134 for the following offense: at or near McGuire AFB, on or about 29 Apr 97, being disorderly in that she engaged in a verbal tirade and threw a handful of dental instruments out a doorway. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On...
On 19 May 97, applicant was advised of her commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for her alleged misconduct in violation of Article 134 for the following offense: at or near McGuire AFB, on or about 29 Apr 97, being disorderly in that she engaged in a verbal tirade and threw a handful of dental instruments out a doorway. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On...
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). 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.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. We noted the applicant's request that the OSB prepared for consideration by the CY97C Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 21 Jul 97, be amended in the "Assignment History" Section to reflect the duty title of I1Executive Officer, Conventional Operations...
On 04 May 2000, the applicant appeared and testified, with counsel, before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). Evidence of record reflects that the applicant’s bad conduct discharge was upgraded by the Air Force Discharge Review Board to under other than honorable conditions on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 18 May 00.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03390 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: STEPHEN J. DUNN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 21 April 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 11 July 1997 application requesting that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge; (2) a referral to a Physical Evaluation Board...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03390
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03390 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: STEPHEN J. DUNN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 21 April 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 11 July 1997 application requesting that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge; (2) a referral to a Physical Evaluation Board...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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). 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.