RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01542
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
All the time she served was without incident and included some
outstanding achievements. Her discharge resulted from one careless
remark she made to her officer in charge (OIC) regarding her
noncommissioned officer (NCO) supervisor at a time when she was under
extreme personal stress.
In support of the appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 April 1977. She was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class and received
four Airman Performance Reports in which the overall evaluations were
7, 7, 8 and 5.
On 7 December 1979, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending a general discharge for her defective attitude and
apathy. Reasons for the action were: Numerous incidents of
substandard performance and conduct. Most of the incidents were for
failure to report to her place of duty and leaving her duty station
without permission. She received letters of reprimand on 7 December
1978, 5 March 1979, 2 August 1979, and 8 November 1979; letters of
counseling on 10 December 1978 and 4 April 1979; dishonorable check
notifications, 15 and 16 November 1978, and 19 June 1979; letter of
admonishment, 29 November 1977; and Article 15s on 6 September 1977
and 1 November 1979. An evaluation officer interviewed her and
determined the applicant was unsuitable for further military service
due to her defective attitude. He concurred with the commander’s
recommendation and did not feel she was a suitable candidate for
rehabilitation. He recommended a general discharge. Applicant
submitted a statement in her own behalf requesting an honorable
discharge stating her problems were due to the turmoil in her personal
life. The base legal services reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support the discharge. They recommended a general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The Discharge
Authority approved the separation and ordered a general discharge
without P&R on 8 January 1980.
On 11 January 1980, the applicant was discharged under honorable
conditions because of unsuitability. She had served 2 years, 8 months
and 20 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states that 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. Therefore, they recommend denial of the
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 12 September 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 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 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. Evidence has not been presented
that would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust. The record indicates that discharge proceedings
were initiated against the applicant based on her commission of
numerous infractions against the good order and discipline of the
service. The applicant has provided no evidence that the information
in the discharge case file is erroneous, that her substantial rights
were violated or that her commanders abused their discretionary
authority. In the absence of such evidence or a showing that her
service was inappropriately characterized, we have no basis on which
to favorably consider her 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 this application, BC-
2003-01542, in Executive Session on 16 October 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 03.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03464
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 August 1978 for a period of four years. On 24 February 1981, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01125
The evaluation officer recommended the applicant receive a general discharge and not be considered for rehabilitation. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00046
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00046 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 August 1980, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending applicant for a discharge for failure to maintain prescribed standards of military...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00041
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00041 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. A new DD 214, Correction to DD Form 214, was issued changing the reason for discharge to read, “Unsuitability: Apathy and Defective Attitude.” The DPPRS evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00096
On 4 October 1979, he received a Letter of Counseling for failure to pay just debt ($131 owed to another Air Force member). On 9 October 1979, he was served a warrant for his arrest by the Sumter County Sheriff for “Trespassing After Notice”. Because he was medically fit while on active duty and his condition had its onset after discharge he was not eligible for an Air Force disability evaluation.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03907
On 4 March 1980, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to report to his duty section at the prescribed time. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01156
On 26 August 1980, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge. - 6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended 15 May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for failure to go to appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01726
On 7 and 23 June 1978, she failed to report for duty, for which she received two failures to repair letters. Upon the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board, on 24 June 1981, the Secretary of the Air Force approved her request to upgrade her RE code to RE-1. Although the applicant contends she should have been medically discharged, she provides no documentary evidence to support that she was unfit for continued military service at the time of her discharge from the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02398
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02398 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01519
Title 38 USC governs the DVA compensation system in awarding disability percentage ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPD states the purpose of the disability evaluation system (DES) is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating or retiring members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating. Evidence of record indicates the applicant was...