Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0002246
Original file (0002246.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-02246
            INDEX CODE:  110.02, 106.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be  changed  to  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The offenses that  she  committed  during  her  active  duty  military
service were inappropriate and ask for forgiveness.  She accepts  full
responsibility for her actions.  The applicant states that the General
discharge she received has prevented her from providing for her family
and she has learned from her mistakes.  She further states that she is
sorry for  her  past  misconduct  and  hopes  that  the  offenses  she
committed while on active duty, will not be held against her  for  the
rest of her life.  The applicant appeals to the board for clemency.

In support of her request, applicant provided  a  personal  statement.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.   Although  the  applicant  submitted  a
statement expressing remorse of her misconduct, she did not submit any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing.  She  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the discharge.  The DPPRS evaluation is at attachment C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
22 Jan 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice to warrant an  upgrade  of  her
discharge.  After careful consideration of the available evidence,  we
found no indication that the actions taken  to  effect  her  discharge
were  improper  or  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the   governing
regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions  taken  against
the applicant were based on factors other  than  her  own  misconduct.
The only other basis upon which to  upgrade  her  discharge  would  be
based  on  clemency.   However,  applicant  has  failed   to   provide
documentation pertaining to her post service activities.   Should  she
provide  documentary  evidence  pertaining   to   her   post   service
activities, we would be willing to reconsider her appeal.   Therefore,
based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which
to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2000-
02246 in Executive Session on 26 March 2003, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                 Mrs.Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.





      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Vice Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02134

    Original file (BC-2002-02134.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02134 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized entry-level separation for fraudulent entry be changed to a medical discharge. Applicant states that she never needed the inhaler and did not suffer another attack until the present time. He affirms that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00104

    Original file (BC-2003-00104.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He recommended a general discharge. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable on 12 June 1998. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02099

    Original file (BC-2002-02099.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, applicant now requests that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for prior to her discharge. The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,”...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202852

    Original file (0202852.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his discharge are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02198

    Original file (BC-2002-02198.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    It appears that she is requesting administrative corrections be made to her medical records and discharge documents. She submitted a hardship letter requesting that she be assigned to a different location or separated so that she could later reenlist. The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03501

    Original file (BC-2005-03501.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 July 1986, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review board (AFDRB) requesting her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The board further concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of the discharge. Based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0203134

    Original file (0203134.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant's discharge. Likewise, since we have determined favorable consideration of the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade is not appropriate at this time, his request for his RE Code to be changed is not possible. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 26 March...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103101

    Original file (0103101.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03101 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her to enlist in the Air Force, or in the alternative, her RE code be waived to allow her enlistment in the Air Force. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03805

    Original file (BC-2002-03805.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant reiterates her request to change her DOR to her original active duty date of 1 Jul 00 or in the alternative consideration for her time served in the Air Force Reserve. _____________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844

    Original file (BC-2002-02844.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ 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...