RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-
00722
INDEX CODE: 100.00,
110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 SEPTEMBER 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he is
eligible to rejoin the military.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A recruiter brought to his attention that his code does not warrant
or match the reason for discharge. He would like to be able to
join the Guard or Reserve.
He has matured since he was discharged. He completed college,
graduating with honors, while working both full and part-time.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Sep 89, for a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic. His highest
grade held was airman first class.
Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL PROMOTION EVALUATION
05 Jul 91 2 (Referral)
28 Feb 92 2 (Referral)
19 Nov 92 2 (Referral)
On 26 Jan 93, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he
was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for
unsatisfactory performance involving failure to perform assigned
duties properly. The commander stated the following reasons for
the proposed discharge:
a. During the period from 29 Feb 92 to 19 Nov 92, applicant
displayed a poor attitude, required constant supervision and lacked
the self-initiative required to perform daily duties. He received
an overall promotion recommendation of 2 on his 19 Nov 92 EPR.
b. During the period from 6 Jul 91 to 28 Feb 92, applicant
failed to meet training requirements by failing to pass his career
development course end-of-course test twice. He was removed from
training and received an overall promotion recommendation of 2 on
his 28 Feb 92 EPR.
c. During the period from 12 Sep 89 to 5 Jul 91, applicant
failed to maintain a constant level of performance, displayed a
careless and indifferent attitude and lacked the self discipline to
perform his duties properly. He received an overall promotion
recommendation of 2 on his 5 Jul 91 EPR.
On 29 Jan 93, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification and after consulting with legal counsel submitted a
statement in his own behalf.
The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found it
legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended a general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The discharge
authority approved the separation and directed an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
Applicant was discharged on 4 Feb 93, in the grade of airman first
class, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of
unsatisfactory performance, with service characterized as under
honorable conditions (general). He was issued an RE Code of 2B
[separated with a general discharge]. He served on active duty for
a period of 3 years, 4 months, and 23 days.
On 22 Mar 04, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review
Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to an honorable
discharge. After review of the evidence of record, 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 Board further
concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade
of the discharge. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached
at Exhibit C.
Pursuant to the request of the Board on 5 May 06, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 12 May 06,
that, on the basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an
arrest record (Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in
part, 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. The
discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided
no facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit
E.
HQ AFPC/JA reviewed this application and recommended denial stating
no error or injustice has been established warranting relief. This
application was not timely filed and should be denied on that basis
alone. Timeliness aside, the applicant’s claim also fails on the
merits. To obtain relief, the applicant must show by a
preponderance of the evidence there exists some error or injustice
warranting corrective action by the board. The United States
Claims Court has repeatedly defined an injustice in the context of
BCMR cases as “treatment by military authorities that shocks the
sense of justice.” The applicant provides no persuasive evidence
that his discharge characterization did not comply with the
requirements contained in the version of AFR 39-10 in effect at the
time he was administratively separated. The most probative
descriptions of his short Air Force career can be found in his
performance reports. These documents contain multiple comments
along the lines of: “Displays a poor attitude, requires constant
supervision and lacks the self initiative required to perform daily
duties in an efficient manner;” his “procrastinating nature has
added an additional burden to this section;” and his “attitude and
performance could be labeled as careless and indifferent.” To put
it briefly, there is no error or injustice in this case; the
applicant’s discharge characterization was appropriate.
The complete AFPC/JA response is at Exhibit F.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 14 Apr 06, copies of the Air Force evaluation’s were forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
reply has not been received by this office (Exhibit G).
On 1 Jun 06, the AFBCMR offered the applicant an opportunity to
provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the
service (Exhibit H).
___________________________________________________________________
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 careful
consideration of the available evidence, the discharge appears to
be in compliance with the governing regulations in effect at the
time and we find no evidence to indicate that the applicant’s
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. In
addition, the applicant’s assigned reenlistment eligibility (RE)
code of 2B accurately reflects his involuntary separation with a
general discharge. Therefore, based on the available evidence of
record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider his
request to upgrade his reenlistment eligibility code.
___________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-
2006-00722 in Executive Session on 13 July 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-
2006-00722 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record.
Exhibit D. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Mar 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 10 Apr 06.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 06.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX all agreed that the applicant had an attitude problem. XXXXXXX informed the commander that he told the applicant that she had a “s--- attitude.” On 19 Jul 91, XXXXXX and the applicant asked to have a meeting with the commander. On 23 Jul 91, XXXXXXX, noted the applicant’s absence from work during the day.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03250
On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that he was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed on 15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03142
However, on 27 Aug 01, the squadron commander reported to the Wing IG he was considering removing the applicant as NCOIC of the Hydraulics shop because he was inciting his personnel over the manning issue and continuing to complain about it outside the rating chain. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends the LOR administered to the applicant on 25 Mar 02, the EPR rendered on him closing 19 Jul 02, and the AF Form 418 be voided and removed from his...
On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...
Regardless, at best, this would be an administrative error and not justification for voiding the report.” While the applicant contends that he was not given feedback during the contested reporting period, only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. DPPPAB disagrees and states that AFR 39- 62 (paragraph 2-25) defines a referral report as an EPR with a rating in the far left block of any performance factor in Section III (Evaluation of Performance) and a rating of...
Per letter dated 3 March 1 9 9 7 , counsel requested the processing of the case be continued (Exhibit J) . DPMAJWl noted applicant's EPR closing 11 February 1993 (Not recommended for promotion at this has an overall rating of "2" time) (Exhibit H) The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and provided comments on issues raised by applicant's counsel with respect to due process and equity. Nor did we find any evidence that the applicant's rights were violated during...
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...
His retirement documents were completed with everything for him to sign as a SSgt based on verbal information from the AFOSI. The applicant states that he was not court-martialed because there was no evidence against him. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 denied without a...
If the referral EPR closing 11 Dec 96 is removed as requested, the applicant would normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to technical sergeant beginning with the 97E6 cycle provided she is recommended by her commander and is otherwise qualified. However, as a result of her circumstances, the applicant has not received an EPR subsequent to the referral EPR (reason for ineligibility), has not taken the required promotion tests, and has not been considered or recommended...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-02808
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSO evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP indicates that after review of the referral report, they are advising the Board to remove the comment "During this period, MSgt P--- was given 24 months hard labor, a reduction in grade for reviewing child pornography." A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...