Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01276
Original file (BC-2010-01276.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01276 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
honorable. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was a young lady who made some mistakes while serving in the 
Air Force and would like to have her DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Discharge or Release from Active Duty, changed to reflect her 
current character. 

 

In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of her 
marriage license. 

 

Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 13 Jul 88. 
Her commander recommended her for discharge for minor disciplinary 
infractions IAW AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46. The specific reasons 
for her discharge were: 

 

 a. She violated a lawful general regulation by wrongfully 
drinking alcohol under age. As a result, she was incapacitated for 
the proper performance of her duties. 

 

 b. She was derelict in her duty, in that she reported to work 
late. She received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 16 Mar 90 for 
her actions. 

 

 c. She reported late for an out brief. 

 

 d. She consumed alcoholic beverages, even though she was under 
age and she had been briefed that Wyoming state law and F.E. Warren 
Air Force Base regulations prohibit drinking under 21 years of age. 
She received another LOR for her actions. 

 

 

 


 e. She failed to attend a scheduled appointment. 

 

The staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority directed she be discharged with a general 
discharge effective 20 Apr 90. She served 1 year, 9 months, and 
8 days on active duty 

 

A request for information pertaining to her post-service activities 
was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Jun 10 for response within 
30 days (see Exhibit C). As of this date, the applicant has not 
responded. 

 

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on the basis of 
the data furnished they were unable to identify an arrest record. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 
The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to 
believe the characterization of her service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 
to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 29 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jun 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03539

    Original file (BC 2013 03539.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A Discharge Review Board (DRB), made up of officers, reviewed all the evidence and testimony on her case and determined she did not commit the offenses which were the basis for the LOR and NJP. On 28 Jun 13, an administrative Discharge Review Board (DRB) found the applicant did not “fail to go” as her commander had determined in the NJP action. While the Board acknowledges the Discharge Review Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02118

    Original file (BC 2014 02118.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02118 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00462

    Original file (BC-2003-00462.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The XXX TAW commander testified that he was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant might have had, that the applicant had family and financial problems, and that while the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem, it was possible he did have an alcohol problem. He testified the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem. Diagnosis was probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer the applicant again to Social Actions and, if retained, to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04336

    Original file (BC-2011-04336.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04336 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 31 May 90, the applicant was served with an addendum to the letter of notification dated 17 May 90 as an additional basis for discharge. As of this date, no response has...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03495

    Original file (BC-2010-03495.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. AFPC/DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jun 11 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02770

    Original file (BC-2002-02770.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, on 9 Feb 00, the group commander decided not to file the LOR in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR). On 12 May 00, the rater informed the applicant that his promotion to lieutenant colonel was delayed pending the outcome of the ongoing AFOSI investigation regarding allegations of fraternization, unprofessional conduct, providing alcohol to minors, obstruction of justice, and making false official statements. The applicant provided a rebuttal dated 30 Jun 00, claiming in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1999-00012A

    Original file (BC-1999-00012A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ USAF/JAG, reviewed the applicant’s request for reconsideration based on the 2000 amendment to 10 USC 1448. A majority of the Board finds that based on the evidence of record and the opinion provided by the Office of the Judge Advocate General, the law, unfortunately for the applicant, only applies to members who are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03618

    Original file (BC-2012-03618.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03618 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Jul 85, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. Exhibit C....

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00374

    Original file (FD2006-00374.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1 (TYPE CEN I I AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I PERSONAL APPEARANCE GRADE 1 AIC 1 x I RECORDREV~EW MEMBER SITTING VOTE OF THE BOARD L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 'The miscoilduct included failure to go, wearing civilian clothes during duty hours, failure to follow a direct order, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, malingering, failure to complete assigned tasks, insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer. Because of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01889

    Original file (BC-2010-01889.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests in the statement that eight areas of evidence be reviewed: 1. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of an 18-page congressional complaint of evidence, with attachments; the LOR and contested OPR with attachments, emails, a conversation transcript with her former commander, memoranda for record, a witness statement, character reference/witness lists, and extracts from her master personnel records. The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit...