RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03270
INDEX CODE 106.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1988 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was inequitable. Other than youthful indiscretions, he
performed well. He has been a productive member of society.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted for six years in the Regular Air Force on 5 Mar
87. During the period in question, he was a law enforcement member
assigned to the 351 Security Police Squadron (351 SPS) at Whiteman
AFB, MO. His one performance report reflected an overall rating of 7.
He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 26 Jan 88 for wearing an
earring while in uniform on 25 Jan 88. His supervisor also indicated
that he had advised the applicant on 18 Jan 88 during a training
session about regulations and consequences regarding military males
wearing earrings.
On 23 Feb 88, his commander imposed Article 15 punishment on the
applicant in the form of 30-day correctional custody and a suspended
reduction from airman first class (A1C) to airman until 21 Aug 88 for
failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 6 Feb 88 for a funeral
detail. The applicant consulted counsel, made a written presentation,
but did not appeal. The Article 15 was not filed in the applicant’s
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).
Statements in the applicant’s record reflect he failed to report on
time for duty on 24 Mar 88 and did not clear his absence with anyone.
On 28 Mar 88, he was again late for duty.
On 18 Apr 88, he pled guilty and was found guilty by a special court-
martial for breach of correctional custody on or about 26 Feb 88 and
failure to go on or about 24 and 28 Mar 88. He was reduced to airman
basic, confined for four months, and forfeited $400 pay per month for
four months.
On 11 Jul 88, the commander notified the applicant he was being
recommended for discharge for conduct prejudicial to good order and
discipline with a general characterization. The commander cited the
incidents above. The applicant was released from confinement on 15
Jul 88 to await discharge. On that day, his commander recommended his
general discharge for misconduct, without probation and rehabilitation
(P&R). The applicant consulted counsel and submitted a statement.
Legal review conducted on 20 Jul 88 found the case sufficient and
recommended a general discharge without P&R.
On 22 Jul 88, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s general
discharge. As a result, the applicant was separated on 27 Jul 88 with
a general discharge in the grade of airman basic for misconduct after
1 year, 1 month and 15 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation
and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant
has substantiated no errors or injustices and his appeal should be
denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 7 Nov 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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded his discharge should be upgraded. Contrary to his
assertions, the applicant’s duty performance was not exemplary.
Further, he provided no evidence his discharge for misconduct was not
supported by his own actions or that he has since become a productive
member of society. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has not sustained his burden of having
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 in
Executive Session on 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03270 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 27 Oct 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02833
On 7 Jan 76, his commander imposed Article 15 punishment in the form of a 60-day restriction to base, forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months, and a suspended reduction from sergeant to airman first class (A1C) until 30 Jun 76 for breaking restriction to the base on or about 18 and 28 Nov 75. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his discharge should be upgraded. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01850
Although the discharge was proper, the applicant may now meet enlistment medical standards and the evidence warrants a change of RE code. The Consultant recommends approval but adds that a change of RE code by the Board is not equivalent to a finding of medically qualified for enlistment and does not guarantee acceptance by the Air Force for enlistment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises the 4C RE code was applied in accordance with governing...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-00666
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2001-00666 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4J, “Entered into Phase I of the Air Force Weight Program, or the unit commander has declared the airman ineligible to reenlist for a period of Phase II or probation,” be changed. Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01570
On 22 Jan 99 he was referred to WHMC for a medical evaluation for symptoms consistent with a bipolar-like illness and personality disorder. Discharge and continued mood stabilizer medication were recommended. Based on the Consultant’s recommendation and the evidence of record, we are not convinced it would be in the best interests of the Air Force or the applicant to allow him to reenlist.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00912
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00912 INDEX CODE: 110.02 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 (UOTHC) discharge,” be changed. For these actions, she received an LOR, which was placed in her existing UIF. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02111 INDEX CODE 100.06 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation program designator (SPD) code of “JGA” (Entry level performance and conduct) and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or entry level separation without...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03243
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03243 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 24 August 1984, the member received a letter of counseling (LOC) for failure to go to two in-processing appointments. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01300
An honorable discharge without P&R was recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded her reason for discharge should be changed to “hardship.” The applicant was ineligible for worldwide availability because she could not comply with the dependent care arrangements required by regulation. The applicant was treated no differently and given the same narrative reason for discharge as other active duty members who cannot...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00464
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States. On 20 Oct 70, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for unfitness. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01003
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01003 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Military Training Instructor (MTI) Ribbon be added to his record. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial of the applicant’s request, stating...