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 Government.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) was not responsive to the
issues she raised during her hearing. The discharge was unjust and
inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident. She was
harassed for trying to clear her name. This led to her nervous
breakdown and the need for lifetime medication. She is not a liar and
does not want to be stigmatized as such.
Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 Aug 86. She
reenlisted for a period of four years on 13 Sep 91, giving her a date
of separation (DOS) of 12 Sep 95. The overall ratings of her Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) from the oldest to the most recent were: 9,
9, 9, 4 (new system), 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, and 2.
During the pertinent period in question, the applicant was a sergeant
serving as a systems analyst at the 4th Supply Squadron at Seymour
Johnson AFB (SJAFB).
On 16 Oct 92, the applicant was punished by Article 15 with a
suspended reduction to the grade of airman first class (A1C) and
forfeitures for failing to obey the lawful order of a security
policeman and being disorderly on 28 Sep 92 at SJAFB.
The applicant initiated an 11-month extension of her enlistment on 28
Sep 94 for separation at high year tenure (HYT), moving her DOS to 12
Aug 96.
While at Airman Leadership School (ALS), the applicant was counseled
for insubordinate conduct. Based on her negative behavior, she was
released from ALS for disciplinary reasons on 2 Feb 95.
After her husband’s threatened suicide following a positive cocaine
urinalysis and his allegation that he obtained the cocaine from the
applicant’s mother, the commander asked the applicant on 14 Mar 95 if
she would consent to a urinalysis test and she did so without
hesitation.
On 29 Mar 95, the applicant testified as a witness at an
administrative discharge board in behalf of an airman first class.
On 31 Mar 95, she was nonrecommended for promotion to staff sergeant
as a result of her misconduct and dismissal from ALS.
On 30 May 95, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 May 95
was referred to the applicant for unacceptable on/off duty conduct and
noncompliance with minimum training requirements. The overall rating
was 2. The applicant rebutted the EPR but the indorser agreed with the
rater’s evaluation.
On 12 Jun 95, the applicant filed a complaint with the 4th Wing IG at
SJAFB, alleging harassment and unfair treatment by upper management
within the 4th Supply Squadron. In a letter dated 22 Jun 95, the
SJAFB IG advised the applicant that her dismissal from a professional
military education school due to misconduct was legal and no
harassment was found. Further, the IG indicated that she made a false
statement to him regarding the alleged unavailability of her
commander.
In Jul 95 the applicant requested that her 11-month extension be
cancelled so that she could separate on 12 Sep 95. Her request for
cancellation was denied on 21 Aug 95.
On 22 Aug 95, she was reduced from sergeant to A1C by Article 15 for
making a false official statement to the SJAFB IG with intent to
deceive. Her area defense counsel (ADC) requested reconsideration
since the applicant only accepted the Article 15 because she had been
told her extension had been cancelled and she was separating on 12 Sep
95. The applicant’s appeal was denied on 28 Aug 95.
On 28 Aug 95, the applicant sent a letter to the Department of Defense
(DOD) Hotline alleging racial harassment, discrimination, and
violations of privacy and constitutional rights.
Also on 28 Aug 95, the applicant requested separation effective 12 Sep
95 for miscellaneous reasons; however, her request was disapproved.
On 29 Aug 95, she was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend
discharge from the Air Force for misconduct, specifically conduct
prejudicial to good order and discipline. The reasons cited were the
two Article 15s and her removal from ALS.
On 7 Sep 95, the applicant offered a conditional waiver of an
administrative discharge board hearing contingent on her receipt of no
less than an honorable discharge. On the same day, her commander
recommended her waiver be rejected and she be given a general
discharge for misconduct. Her waiver was rejected on 12 Sep 95. On 2
Oct 95, she waived her rights to a hearing before an administrative
discharge board. Her case was found legally sufficient on 19 Oct 95
with a recommendation of a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
The applicant was discharged for misconduct in the grade of A1C on 26
Oct 95 with a general discharge. She had 9 years, 2 months and 23 days
of active service.
In a letter dated 11 Dec 95, SAF/IGQ directed HQ ACC/IGQ to conduct a
DOD 1034 (whistleblower) reprisal inquiry into the applicant’s
allegations of reprisal for testifying at an administrative discharge
hearing in Mar 95 and for making an IG complaint. A 14 Feb 96 Report
of Inquiry (ROI) investigating the allegations of retaliation
concluded that reprisal did not occur. A 26 Jun 96 Addendum to the ROI
also concluded that no reprisal occurred with regard to the
applicant’s visit and statement to the SJAFB IG. [IG reports are
routinely kept for only two years; therefore, the unredacted reports
are no longer available. While the two ROIs in the applicant’s
records are masked in certain areas, the findings were not masked.]
The DOD IG advised the applicant’s Congressional Representative in a
letter dated 21 Nov 96 that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The
DOD IG concluded that as the result of a pattern of misconduct by the
applicant, discharge actions were initiated; therefore, there was an
independent basis for the personnel actions taken against her apart
from her whistleblowing activities. The DOD IG also advised the
applicant in a letter dated 22 Nov 96 that her allegations were
unsubstantiated and that they concurred with the ROI findings.
On 25 Feb 99, the applicant filed an application with the AFDRB for an
honorable discharge and different narrative reason for discharge.
After a personal hearing, the AFDRB denied her requests on 29 Jun 99.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed
this appeal and provides his rationale for recommending denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant provided a copy of her conversation with the Seymour
Johnson AFB (SJAFB) Inspector General (IG) on 13 Jun 95. She did not
lie and did not intend to mislead anyone.
A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachment, is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. After a thorough and
careful examination of all the materials pertaining to this appeal, we
are not persuaded that the characterization of and narrative reason
for the applicant’s discharge should be changed. In this regard, the
applicant’s submission does not provide convincing documentation to
overcome the evidence of record and the Air Force and DOD IG findings.
Further, she has not substantiated her assertions that she was
harassed and discriminated against or unfairly punished for an
isolated incident. On the contrary, the available evidence appears to
indicate she had a history of inappropriate conduct. The first Article
15 and her dismissal from ALS arose from her own disorderly and
unprofessional behavior. The dismissal, and the bases for that
dismissal, support the nonrecommendation for promotion and the
referral EPR. The second Article 15 was clearly intended to punish
her for making a false statement to a senior officer, not for making a
complaint to the IG. Thus she has failed to persuade this Board that
the unfavorable actions taken against her were made in reprisal for
her testimony at an administrative discharge hearing, her IG complaint
or any other protected disclosure. Since she has not sustained her
burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
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 issue(s)
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 probable 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 this application in
Executive Session on 6 June 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Dec 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Feb 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Feb 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 00, w/atch.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02811
His performance to date did not warrant he be selected for reenlistment. On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and nonselected him for reenlistment. At the end of the deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion had been placed in a withhold status because of his nonselection for reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02987
On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the applicants reprisal case and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the applicants complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04268
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of applicants requests to remove the contested EPRs ending 12 Aug 09 and 29 Jun 10. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant reversing his demotion to the grade of SSgt, promoting him to the grade of MSgt with back pay or removing the contested EPRs from his record. Therefore, aside from DPSOEs recommendation to time bar the applicants...
Applicant's EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 6 Oct 95 3 * 6 Oct 96 3 * Contested report On 11 Aug 97, Applicant was notified that her commander was recommending she be discharged with service characterized as general for minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of the administrative discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also ineligible for promotion. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E9 to chief master sergeant (promotions effective Jan 98 - Dec 98). However, if the Board upgrades the decoration as requested, it could direct supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 98E9. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
Applicant alleges that PME statements were not included in the contested report and he was not awarded a medal because of reprisal against him. He was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for service performed at the Air Force Academy during the period 26 June 1993 to 7 October 1996. He was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for service performed at the Air Force Academy during the period 26 June 1993 to 7 October 1996.
On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00350
According to the 99 ABW Commanders letter dated 4 Dec 13, she was issued a written no-contact order on 8 Feb 13 by the First Sergeant to stay away from another member of the 99 LRS per a request from Security Forces investigators because the applicant was discussing the open investigation with the said person. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 Jul 14, copies of...