Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03812
Original file (BC-2002-03812.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03812
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not understand why he was given a code that would not allow  him  to
reenter the armed forces.  He is currently trying to enlist in the Army.

In support of the applicant’s appeal he provided a copy of his DD  Form  214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  29  June  2000  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 16 May 2001, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him  for  misconduct,  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The specific reasons follows:

      On or about 8 January 2001, he used a government  computer  to  access
the internet.  The internet site he visited was not  for  official  business
or authorized activities.  In addition, he was also instructed  to  complete
his Unit Review Exercise for volume  3  of  his  Career  Development  Course
(CDC), which he failed to complete.  On or about 9 January 2001,  he  failed
to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  He was  thirty
(30) minutes late for work and failed to inform anyone that he  was  running
late.  For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Counseling  (LOC)  dated
10 January 2001.

      On or about 22 January 2001, he was wearing a  tongue  stud  while  in
uniform.  He received verbal counseling on previous occasions prior to  this
incident that this type of misconduct  was  in  violation  of  AFI  36-2903,
Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel.  For this  misconduct,
he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 24 January 2001.

      On or about 2 February 2001, he appeared  for  duty  in  uniform  with
unshaven facial hair.  He  was  in  violation  of  AFI  36-2903.   For  this
misconduct, he received an LOC dated 2 February 2001.

      On or about 5 February 2001, he was wearing a tongue stud while  on  a
military installation.  This misconduct was in  violation  of  AFI  36-2903.
He received verbal counseling on previous occasions and a written  reprimand
prior to this incident for similar  misconduct.   For  this  misconduct,  he
received an LOR dated 9 February 2001.

      On or about 12 February 2001, he failed to go to his  appointed  place
of duty at the prescribed time.  He was seventy (70) minutes late  for  work
and failed to  inform  anyone  that  he  was  running  late,  as  previously
counseled.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 14 February 2001.

      On or about 26 February 2001, he was notified by Security Forces  that
his base driving privileges were revoked for a  period  of  two  (2)  years.
This was as the result of his state driver’s license  being  suspended.   On
or about 1 March 2001, he failed to obey that lawful order in that he  drove
on  base  while  his  base  driving  privileges  were  revoked.   For   this
misconduct, he received an LOR dated 16 March 2001.  In addition,  this  LOR
established his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

The commander indicated in his recommendation  that  he  did  not  recommend
probation and rehabilitation because the applicant had  been  given  several
opportunities to comply with standards but failed to conform and  adhere  to
military guidelines.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 16 March 2001, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his  right
to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 4 May 2001, applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to  impose
nonjudicial  punishment  upon  him  for  the  following  reason:  On  divers
occasions from on or about 18 April 2001 to on or about 30  April  2001,  he
made a fraudulent claim against  the  United  States,  for  food  valued  at
$28.65, which he was not eligible to  receive.   On  or  about  27  February
2001, he failed to obey a lawful order in that he drove  on  base  when  his
driving privileges were revoked.

On 10 May 2001, after consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right
to a trial by court-martial, did not request a personal appearance  and  did
submit a written presentation.

He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the  following  punishment:
a reduction to the rank of airman basic and 14 days extra duty.

Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was  filed  in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 24 May 2001, the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be
separated with a general (under honorable conditions) without probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 24 May 2001, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 30 May 2001, in  the  grade  of  airman  with  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Misconduct).  He served a total  of  11 months  and  2  days  total
active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  Discharge
Authority.

The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no  other
facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  Accordingly,  they  recommend
his records remain the same.  He has filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicates that the basis for the  applicant’s  separation  action
was a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s  RE  code  2C,  “Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization or service” is correct.

EXAMINER’S NOTE: AFPC/DPPAE’s advisory is in error.  The applicant  received
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a RE code of  2B  vice
an honorable discharge with a RE code of 2C.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 January 2003, copies of the Air Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  an  injustice  warranting  a  change  in   the
applicant’s RE code.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record,  we
note that in the 11 months and 2 days  that  the  applicant  was  on  active
duty, he received 2 LOCs, 4 LORs, and an Article 15.  Therefore,  the  Board
believes  that  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards   in
effecting the separation, and the Board does not  find  persuasive  evidence
that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not  afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the time of  discharge.   The  applicant
has not established that he has been  the  victim  of  either  an  error  or
injustice.  The RE code he received  reflected  the  type  of  discharge  he
received.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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  02-03812
in Executive Session on 20 February 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
                  Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 November 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 December 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 December 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 January 2003.




                                RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00190

    Original file (FD2006-00190.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Copies of Disciplinary Infractions Letters With Rebuttals. On or about 19 Nov 04, you wore an earring off-duty, but on-base when it was unlawful to do so, For this misconduct, you received: (1) a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 1 Dec 04, which was filed in your Unfavorable Information File (UIF); and, (2) a Vacation of Suspended Punishment, dated 23 Dec 04, received from a prior Article 15, dated 8 Oct 04. b. I have made an appointment for you to consult with the Area Defense Counsel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02991

    Original file (BC-2002-02991.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 February 1997, he failed to report for duty at the prescribed time of 0730. The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending this discharge, the applicant was given several opportunities to improve his conduct. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 January 2003.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03240

    Original file (BC-2003-03240.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes that the Article 15 punishment he received, that led to his eventual discharge, was excessive. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00103

    Original file (FD2003-00103.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD03-0103 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. For this misconduct you received an LOR on 24 Apr 02. f. You did, at or near Sheppard AFB TX, on or about 23 Apr 02, fail to go at the time prescribe to your appointed place of duty, to wit: Physical Conditioning (PC). For this misconduct you received an AF Form 174, Record of Individual Counseling, on 17 Dec 01.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02310

    Original file (BC-2007-02310.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02310 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 18 January 2000, he received an LOR for failing to report to work on time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01925

    Original file (BC-2004-01925.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. On 8 May 2002, the applicant received an LOC for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, resulting in vacation of his Article 15 Nonjudicial Punishment, reducing him to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 27 November 2001. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002032

    Original file (0002032.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received an honorable discharge for medical disability because of his medical condition. On 6 May 1997, The Report of Medical History shows indication of depression and that the applicant was taking an anti-depressant medication. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed this application and states that...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00070

    Original file (FD2003-00070.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for willfully disobeying an order, wearing a tongue piercing while on base, and making a false official statement. (The following additional infractions were found on AF Form 418,10 Oct 2000): VERBAL COUNSELING, UNDATED - For missed appointment. For this action you received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 27 Sep 00 (Atch 1b).

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0410

    Original file (FD2002-0410.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0410 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. You must complete the attached DD Form 2697 (atch 5) and report to the Peterson AFB Flight Medicine Clinic on 19 Mar 02 at 1430 hours for the examination.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01351

    Original file (BC-2003-01351.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a letter of counseling (LOC) on 17 October 2001 for being late for duty. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his contention of no longer being affected by “previous flaws”, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 May 03.