RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03497
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 May 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not receive adequate help with her drug addiction, which
subsequently led to her discharge.
Applicant does not provide any documentation in support of the appeal.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 1986. On 21
November 1988, she was notified by her commander he was recommending
she be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct – pattern of
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The bases for the
recommendation were: (1) she received an Article 15 for failure to
go. Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic,
forfeiture of $100.00 pay for one month, and restriction to the limits
of Travis AFB for 60 days. The reduction to the grade of airman basic
was suspended until 17 April 1989, at which time it would have been
remitted without further action unless sooner vacated; (2) she
received four Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for failure to go two times,
for uttering two checks without sufficient funds in her checking
account, and for violating traffic laws by speeding; (3) she received
four Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for speeding on two occasions, for
parking in a designated parking area, and for being 30 days delinquent
on her NCO club account. She acknowledged receipt of the notification
and waived her right to submit in her own behalf. The base legal
office reviewed the recommendation, found it legally sufficient, and
recommended separation with an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The discharge
authority concurred with the recommendations and directed her
separation. She was separated on 13 December 1988. She served two
years, and seven months on active duty.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states 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 evidence or identify any
errors in her discharge processing. Nor did she provide any facts
warranting a change to her under honorable conditions (general)
discharge.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8
December 2006 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. Based upon the presumption of
regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence
to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant’s discharge was
proper and in compliance with appropriate directives. The only other
basis upon which to upgrade her discharge would be clemency. However,
applicant has failed to provide documentation pertaining to her post
service activities. Should she provide statements from community
leaders and acquaintances attesting to her good character and
reputation and other evidence of successful post-service
rehabilitation, we would be willing to reconsider her application
based on new evidence. 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 this application in
Executive Session on 17 January 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Nov 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Dec 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02861
Applicant’s commander notified him on 22 May 1987 that she was recommending his discharge for misconduct, specifically, a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and that she was recommending his service be characterized as general. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03758
(3) On 5 June 1989, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for reporting for duty over two hours late. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on her request. Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 24 Jan 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03501
On 9 July 1986, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review board (AFDRB) requesting her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The board further concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of the discharge. Based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194
At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00454
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and indicated that there was no documentation in applicant’s master personnel records relating to the reason for discharge or the discharge process. We find no evidence of error in this case and after...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00055
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00055 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Jul 07 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to a code that does not require repayment of the unearned portion of her Selective Reenlistment Bonus...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00623
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. As of this date, this office has received no response. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.
Her case was presented before an evaluation officer who recommended that she be discharged from the Air Force and provided a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...