RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02007
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 DEC 2006
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was inequitable because it was based on an incident
which was out of his control. Shortly, after his marriage, he and
his wife separated and his troubles began. Because of his marital
problems, his first sergeant allowed him to take some leave. His
former wife purposely withdrew money from his account, which caused
overdrafts and checks to bounce. He contacted his first sergeant
who advised him to wait and take care of it when he came off leave.
This led to him being punished with an Article 15. He tried to
petition to his first sergeant, however, he said the bounced checks
were written before May.
He believes he did everything he could by advising his first
sergeant. He eventually took care of the bounced checks and made
everything right and found himself discharged and wondering why.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular on 8 May 97 for a period of four
years. His highest grade held was senior airman.
On 13 Jul 99, the squadron commander initiated administrative
discharge action against the applicant for a Pattern of Misconduct,
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. The specific
reasons for the proposed action were:
Between 1 Aug and 30 Aug 98, applicant failed to maintain
sufficient funds in his checking account when he issued two check.
For this, he received a Letter of Counseling.
On or about 14 Oct 98, applicant did with intent to defraud
and falsely pretend to his was another individual, to illegally
receive services from these two companies. For this offense, on
2 Dec 98, he received Article 15 punishment. His punishment
consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman basic,
forfeiture of $100 pay per month for two months, ten days of extra
duty, a reprimand, and establishment of an Unfavorable Information
File (UIF).
On or about 28 Mar 99, he received a traffic ticket for
parking in a non-designated parking slot.
On or about 6 Apr 99, applicant failed to maintain sufficient
funds in his checking account. For this offense he received
punishment under Article 15, consisting of a reduction in grade to
airman with an effective date and date of rank of 2 Dec 98,
suspended forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months, ten days
of extra, a letter of counseling and entry in his UIF.
On or about 27 Apr 99, applicant’s security access to
classified information/unescorted entry into restricted areas was
suspended.
On about 8 Jun 99, applicant’s security clearance was
temporarily revoked because of marital problems and attempted
suicide.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. He
waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements in his
own behalf. On 15 Jul 99, the staff judge advocate found the case
to be legally sufficient. On 16 Jul 99, the discharge authority
directed applicant be discharged with service characterized as
under honorable conditions (general).
On 19 Jul 99, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFI 36-3208 by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as
general (under honorable conditions). He served 2 years, 2 months,
and 11 days on active duty.
On 27 Jun 04, the applicant submitted an application to the Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under honorable
conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB
denied his request on the grounds that no legal or equitable basis
existed for upgrade of discharge (Exhibit B).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied. Based on
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 15 Jul 05 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
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. 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.
___________________________________________________________________
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-2005-02007 in Executive Session on 30 August 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 05, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jul 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01516
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). The evidence of record indicates the applicant was given a general discharge for misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
The AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. In addition, the DD Form 214 on file in the applicant’s personnel record was reissued as a result of the AFDRB decision and is correct. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01414
Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Misconduct” to “Pregnancy.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she first requested to be separated based on her pregnancy, her commander gave her the option to remain on active duty. On 7 Feb 06, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her general discharge to honorable and change her RE code and reason and authority...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01850 INDEX CODE: 110.00 480-13-0897 HEARING DESIRED: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he can enlist in the Air Force Reserve. On 26 Oct 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded applicant’s discharge to honorable (see Exhibit C). In this regard, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00600
On 16 August 2001, the applicant submitted a similar appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 21 November 2002, the AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01862
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The decision by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to deny his request to upgrade his discharge to honorable was unjust. A legal review of the discharge case file by the staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01745
The administrative discharge board convened on 26 April 2001 and recommended applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for upgrade of discharge to honorable and change of reason for discharge on 10 January 2002 (Exhibit B). On 27 June 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board again considered all the evidence of record and concluded that the overall...
On 25 Jan 99, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for disobeying a lawful order on 17 Dec 98 and 17 Jan 99, and for being drunk and disorderly on 17 Jan 99. The commander further stated that before recommending the discharge, the applicant received numerous administrative counselings for his continued failure to perform his assigned duties. He was sent to Mental Health counseling, anger management counseling, and alcohol counseling.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01791
On 11 August 1964, applicant was notified that the commander was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force as an unsuitable airman under the provisions of Section B, AFR 39-16, and that he be furnished a general discharge. The evaluation officer recommended applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without being subject to the rehabilitation program. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...