RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03483
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: American Legion
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Overall extenuating circumstances of her situation and other problems
she was experiencing at the time were not taken into consideration.
Had they been, her discharge would have been honorable.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 24
April 1986. She was progressively promoted to the grade of Airman
First Class (A1C/E-3) with an effective date and a date of rank of 24
February 1987.
On 8 September 1986, the applicant was charged with aggravated assault
as, during an argument off base, she stabbed her husband in the arm.
She received an Article 15 on 9 March 1987 that imposed a reduction in
grade to Airman (AMN/E-2) and 14 days extra duty as a result of being
charged with disorderly conduct and physical confrontation. On 6
April 1987, she received another Article 15 that imposed reduction in
grade to Airman Basic (AB/E-1) for two additional charges of
disorderly conduct and disobeying a direct order.
On 15 May 1987, the applicant received notification that she was being
recommended for discharge due to Misconduct, and Pattern of Conduct
Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. She received a general
discharge on 4 June 1987 under the provisions of AFR 39-10. The
applicant had completed a total of 1 year, 1 month and 11 days of
active duty and was serving in the grade of AB at the time of
discharge. She received a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of 2B,
Misconduct-Pattern, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.
The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AF DRB)
on 2 April 1998 for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable. On 28
July 1998, the DRB considered the applicant’s appeal and denied it.
The DRB concluded that the applicant had been afforded full
administrative due process during her discharge and that there existed
no legal or equitable basis for upgrading her discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial noting that the applicant’s appeal to the
Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) was denied in July 1998.
DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Additionally
DPPRS noted that the applicant had provided no new evidence nor did
she present any errors or injustices that occurred during her
discharge processing.
AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel admits that the applicant had been ordered to stay away from
her husband. Their contention is that the small community at Tinker
AFB made it very difficult for the applicant to avoid her husband.
Additionally, the applicant was trying very hard, even through being
abuse, to make her marriage work, stating that her deep-seated beliefs
about marriage were driving her actions.
Counsel concludes by reiterating their support for the applicant’s
appeal and stating that the applicant’s attempts to save her marriage
go to the very base of our (American) value system.
Applicant's response through counsel 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 error or injustice warranting an upgrade of the
characterization of her service. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded
that the actions taken against her were improper, contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or
based on factors other than her own misconduct. Therefore, in the
absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03483 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 28 Oct 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, 4 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, 20 Dec 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, American Legion, 16 Jan 03
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03705
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken against him were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other than his own misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2002-03705 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2002-04016
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04016 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: Jerry Berry HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant appealed to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) to upgrade his discharge. (Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02576
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02576 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed. Applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Nov 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Hardship) and assigned an RE code of 4H (Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03000
She served 2 years, 2 months and 13 days of active service. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. However, after reviewing the applicant’s records, the Board believes the narrative reason for separation and her current RE code are somewhat harsh.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02322 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge) be changed so she can reenlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). On 9 Apr 93, the applicant submitted a...
On 22 September 1980, applicant's commander recommended discharge for drug abuse as evidenced by a Memo for Record dated 17 June 1980, which revealed applicant admitted to personal use of marijuana on several occasions. On 11 December 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02626
There is no documentation that reflects further evaluation of this history at the time of her enlistment. The applicant states that it was her depression resulting from the death of her 87 year-old father, in July 1996, and from mistreatment at work by her supervisors that caused her to abuse alcohol and hallucinogenic mushrooms. An April 1995 emergency room entry reported use of alcohol on the day of the incident leading to her emergency care.
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 1 June 2001 under provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (pregnancy or childbirth), with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at that time. A complete copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00923
On 8 Jul 03, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction in effect at the time and we find no evidence to indicate that he was denied any rights to which entitled, or that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03800
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 24 February 1957. On 15 June 1960, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge due to the Air Force considering him unfit to serve further. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable...