RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03260
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: AL
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was because of racism and harassment. The harassment
started with a lie that he was seen getting out of an automobile
with an unshaven mustache, which was untrue, because he walked to
work everyday. He says he is willing to take a lie detector test.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a letter of character
reference from a former service member.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 May 01 for a
period of four years. Prior to the events under review, applicant
was promoted to the grade of airman first class with an effective
date and date of rank of 9 Sep 02.
On 10 Feb 03, the squadron section commander initiated
administrative discharge action against the applicant for failure
to maintain standards of dress and personal appearance or military
deportment. The specific reasons for the proposed action were:
On or about 27 Feb 02, applicant was found arguing with another
airman in his duty section on three separate occasions. For this
offense, he received a record of individual counseling (RIC).
On or about 19 Jul 02, applicant was found lying to justify his
action or gain credibility. For this offense, he received an RIC.
On or about 1 Aug 02, he failed to comply with proper dress and
appearance standards in accordance with AFI 36-2903. For this
misconduct, he received an RIC.
On or about 26 Aug 02, applicant failed to show proper respect to a
superior commissioned officer by not saluting. He received a
letter of reprimand (LOR).
On or about 6 Sep 02, he failed to go to his appointed place of
duty and was willfully derelict in the performance of duty. For
this offense, he received an LOR.
On or about 19 Dec 04 and 20 Dec 02, applicant failed to render the
proper respect to two superior commissioned officers on two
occasions. For his punishment, he received an LOR, an entry in his
unfavorable information file (UIF), and placement on the control
roster.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and
after consulting with counsel, he submitted statements in his own
behalf. On 19 Feb 03, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate found the case
file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge for
failure to maintain dress and personal appearance or military
deportment and recommended the applicant be separated with a
general discharge, without probation or rehabilitation. On 8 Mar
03, the discharge authority approved a general discharge, without
probation and rehabilitation.
On 14 Mar 03, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFI 36-3208 by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with service
characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and was
issued an RE code of 2B (separated with a general or under other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge). He served 1 year,
10 months, and 6 days on active duty.
On 27 Feb 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge
upgraded.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied. Based on
available documentation in the file, they found the discharge
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority. They also noted
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided
no other facts warranting a change to his character of service.
A complete copy of the 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 5 Nov 04 for review and comment 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force
instructions and we find no evidence to indicate that his
separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find no
evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the
documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's
appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no
basis upon which to favorably consider 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 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-2004-03260 in Executive Session on 7 December 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Oct 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Oct 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 04.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03529
The following derogatory information was provided to the discharge authority as part of the applicant’s overall military service record, but was not considered as a basis for the administrative discharge or characterization of service: a. Applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) on 18 Sep 03 for a duty related safety offense on 16 Sep 03. b. h. Applicant received a LOR on 29 Jan 03 for failure to report to duty.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02418
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00462
(Change Discharge to Honorable, Change the RE Code, and Reason for Discharge) Issue 1: I would like the Air Force Review Board to change my code, because I'm wanting to return to the Air Force either as active duty as prior or as a reservist. for which you were punished under Article 15, c. On 7 Jan 05, you failed to report to work cm time, for which you received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 7 Jan 05, which was filed in your Personal Information File (PIF), d. On 15 Jul04, the wit was...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03310
On 12 Sep 96, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02547
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was discharged on 2 Jan 75, after 8 months and 22 days on active duty. Therefore, her DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, does not list character and behavior disorder, personality disorder, or antisocial personality disorder as the basis for discharge. The applicant argues that the diagnosis of “Anti-Social Personality Disorder”...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0245
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | gp 002-0245 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. For this, the Assistant Chief of Operations of the Fire Department gave him a letter of reprimand (LOR), 4 Aug 99. h. On 19 Sep 99, the respondent was derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to meet military dress and appearance standards. Direct the respondent be discharged with.a general discharge, with or without the...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-02807
Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 7 Jun 85. He petitioned the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to upgrade his discharge to honorable in 1993. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03812
For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 9 February 2001. For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 14 February 2001. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01516
On 12 Feb 02, the applicant was notified of his squadron commander’s intent to recommend an other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a pattern of misconduct based on the SCM finding, the Article 15 and the LOR. On 14 Feb 02, the applicant requested an administrative discharge board and lengthy service consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the Article 15...