RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02409
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:
Applicant makes no contentions. Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Nov 82. She was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, having assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 17 Nov 83. On 21 Sep 84,
she was notified by her commander that he was recommending she be
discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 paragraph 5-
46, for misconduct. The specific reasons for this action were that on 28
Aug 84, she was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for writing a check that
was returned due to insufficient funds; on 19 Jun 84, she was provided a
Letter of Counseling (LOC) for reporting late to work; on 28 Mar 84, she
received an LOR for writing 13 checks that were returned due to
insufficient funds; on 28 Mar 84, she received an LOC for failing to pay
her financial debts; and on 23 Feb 84, she received an LOC for writing
three checks that were returned due to insufficient funds. She was advised
of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification
on that same date. After consulting counsel, applicant elected to waive
her right to submit matters on her own behalf. In a legal review of the
case file, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient and
recommended discharge without probation or rehabilitation. On 9 Oct 84,
the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed the
applicant be discharged and issued an general discharge. She was
discharged on 11 Oct 84. She served 1 year, 10 months, and 25 days on
active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states that the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge
authority. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any
errors in her discharge processing.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Oct
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 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 that would warrant upgrade of her discharge
to honorable. We see no evidence of an error in this case and evidence has
not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant has
been the victim of an injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Accordingly, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 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-2003-
02409 in Executive Session on 13 Nov 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
On 9 Apr 95, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report for duty. On 29 May 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request that her discharge be upgraded to honorable (see Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02993
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02993 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03661
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03291 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be set aside and she be given a disability retirement. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The discharge she received was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01253
3) 19 Jan 82, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for violating Air Force Standards. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629
The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00053
mere AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN SRA | ee PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW ] NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL NONE MEMBERS SITTING ea ISSUES INDEX NUMBER f iS ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD A93.11, A94.05, A94.53 447.00 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION HEARING DATE 03-05-28 CASE NUMBER FD2003-00053 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03186
He also provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C. EXAMINER'S NOTE: An Air Force evaluation pertaining to the RE code was not received; however, prior to forwarding the case to the Board the Air Force determined that the RE code assigned is correct. Therefore, the applicant’s RE code apparently was appropriately assigned and accurately reflected the circumstances of his separation, and, we find no evidence to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02205
As for his separation date, he was not supposed to separate until after 23 Jul 04. The law provides for benefits for an individual who separates with less than a full term of service if the reason for discharge is Secretarial Authority, hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to service (EPTS), physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force (RIF). While his separation date may have been beyond his control, we are persuaded he...