RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02827
INDEX CODE 106.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable and her reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Involuntarily discharged with general
or UOTHC characterization) be changed so she can join the Air National
Guard.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She filed a sexual harassment case against her boss and, as a result,
was retaliated against and made to look like a trouble maker. She was
a one-term airman who didn’t know how to handle the situation. If she
was such a problem, why did she [receive a general discharge]? She
wants to join the Alabama Air National Guard.
A copy of her complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 March 1992.
Apparently Social Actions expressed concern to the commander about the
applicant’s state of mind. The commander, indicating he had also seen
indications the applicant was not coping well with stress, ordered an
evaluation by the Mental Health Service at Plattsburgh AFB. According
to a 6 October 1994 letter from the Chief of Psychiatry to the
commander, the applicant was evaluated on 5 October 1994 and diagnosed
as having an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features;
however, the Chief felt there was no evidence of a disorder warranting
disposition through military medical channels.
She underwent another commander-directed mental health evaluation on
19 January 1995 as a result of the previous evaluation and her history
of infractions. The Chief, Psychological Services, made no diagnosis,
indicating there was no evidence of a disorder warranting disability
processing. The Chief added that, although there was no medically
disqualifying condition warranting separation, individuals with the
applicant’s particular personality style and pattern did not make for
a good match with the military environment.
On 2 February 1995, her commander notified her of his intent to
recommend her for discharge for minor disciplinary infractions
consisting of the following:
-- Record of Counseling (ROC) (26 Oct 92) - Failure to obey an
order between 21-26 Oct 92.
-- Letter of Counseling (LOC) (24 Dec 92) - Sleeping on duty
on 24 Dec 92.
-- ROC (14 Oct 93) - Failure to go on 8 Oct 93; uniform
infraction; disrespectful and lackadaisical attitude
while counseled.
-- LOR (20 Dec 93) - Sleeping on duty on 14 Dec 93;
unfavorable information file (UIF) established.
-- Article 15 (26 May 94) - Failure to go on 14 May 94;
reduction from airman first class to airman; appeal
denied.
-- LOC (22 Sep 94) - Leaving designated work area without
permission on 16 Sep 94 and speeding on 18 Sep 94.
-- Letter of Reprimand (LOR) (5 Jan 95) - Absent without leave
(AWOL) from 21-27 Dec 94.
The applicant consulted counsel and provided written matters for
consideration. Her area defense counsel (ADC) requested that she be
given an honorable discharge, citing her pregnancy as a mitigating
factor. However, on 15 February 1995, the commander recommended the
applicant be given a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation (P&R). Legal review found the case sufficient and
concurred with the commander’s recommendation.
On 14 March 1995, the discharge authority directed the applicant be
discharged without P&R for minor disciplinary infractions with a
general discharge. Applicant was subsequently discharged on 20 March
1995 in the grade of airman, with a general characterization of her 3
years and 1 day of active service. She received an RE code of “2B” and
a separation designator code (SPD) of “JKA” (Pattern of Misconduct).
The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board
(DRB) without counsel on 2 September 1998, appealing for an honorable
discharge and a change in the reason for discharge. The DRB denied
her appeal on 23 September 1998.
The applicant alluded to an Inspector General (IG) complaint filed in
1994. However, neither the IG nor Social Actions retain files for
longer than two years. SAF/IGQ confirmed by electronic mailgram dated
10 March 1999 that, if an IG investigation into the applicant’s
allegations was ever conducted, it is no longer a matter of record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The DRB Brief reflects that the board was very interested in the final
resolution of the sexual harassment complaint the applicant stated she
filed. However, because her record contained no information regarding
whether or not any of the allegations were substantiated, it was
impossible for the DRB to evaluate this matter. The DRB concluded that
the discharge was proper and within the discretion of the discharge
authority.
A copy of the complete DRB Brief, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, advised that the
RE code the applicant received is correct as it was driven by the type
of discharge she received.
A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the DRB Brief and the Air Force evaluation.
She asks that the Board research the IG complaint she filed early in
1994 because she never saw any copy, report or paperwork regarding the
complaint.
A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant upgrading the
applicant’s general discharge to honorable. Other than her own
essentially uncorroborated assertions, she has not provided any
evidence to show she was sexually harassed or unfairly treated as
alleged. Despite our efforts, we were unable to obtain any record of a
Social Actions or IG complaint and finding. Beyond this, we would
remind the applicant that the Board does not contact witnesses in
behalf of an applicant, nor is it an investigative body. The burden
of providing sufficient evidence of probable material error or
injustice rests with each applicant. Based on the available
documentation in this case, we find no impropriety in the
characterization of the applicant's discharge. It appears the
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the
separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent
regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all
the rights to which entitled at the time of her discharge. Since she
has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or
an injustice, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought.
4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant changing her
RE code. The RE code she received was driven by her discharge, which
we unanimously conclude was appropriately characterized. The applicant
has provided no persuasive evidence to convince the majority of this
Board that her “2B” RE code should be changed to one that would allow
reenlistment.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 27 April 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The Board recommended denial of the applicant’s request for an
honorable discharge. Ms. Loeb was willing to recommend that the
applicant’s “2B” RE code be changed to a “waiverable” code of “3K,”
but she does not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AF/DRB Brief.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 9 Oct 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Oct 98.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 98.
PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends her discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. FBI Report, dated 14 Aug 98. DOUGLAS J. HEADY Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 100, 110 AFBCMR 98-01562 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0387
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD02-0387 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. And, he received eight Records of Individual Counseling for reporting for mobility without proper equipment, acting in an unprofessional manner, negligent in the performance of duties, dereliction of duty (twice), late for work (three times), leaving a place of duty without authority, failure to complete assigned duties, and for receiving a...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00355
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02860
The Recommendation Letter and Legal Review could not be found in the available records. As he has provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge, denial is recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we conclude the general discharge was appropriate given the applicant’s misconduct and that the RE code, which was driven by the discharge, is correct.
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00068
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DQ EE WLNG, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. Her infractions included missing numerous appointments with her On-The-Job Training manager, failing to complete her Career Development Course in a timely manner after indicating to her supervisor on numerous occasions that she was progressing...
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00006
In reviewing the evidence presented, I find there exists a legally sufficient basis to warrant separating -from the Air Force. Clearly and should be discharged. d. On or about 13 October 1994, you wrote a check to the Moody AFB Exchange in the amount of about $50.00, and thereafter, failed to place or maintain sufficient knds in your account to pay this check in full upon its presentment for payment.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03256 INDEX CODE 110.02 106.00 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 1995 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason of “Misconduct” be changed to “Convenience of the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 23 Oct 94. In the applicant’s response dated 17 Nov 94 to the referral EPR, she states that she realizes that ‘she has a lot of reprimands in her Personal Information File (PIF) and didn’t consider herself ready for promotion.’ She also states...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01248
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...