RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00632
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After giving so much to the Air Force, she has not been able to
use her benefits at all. Her general discharge seemed harsh for
one mistake. She is now 52 years old and would like educational
benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) so
that she can go back to school.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, issued in conjunction with her 14 Aug 86 separation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 31 Jan 84,
for a period of four years. The applicant was progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class with an effective
date and Date of Rank (DOR) of 31 Mar 85.
The applicant received several Letters of Reprimand for weight
control. On 24 Jul 86, she received an Article 15 for wrongful
use of marijuana. Her punishment consisted of a reduction in
grade to airman with a DOR of 24 Jul 86.
On 29 Jul 86, the squadron commander notified the applicant of
administrative discharge action for misconduct (drug abuse)
based on the incidents cited above.
After consulting with counsel, she submitted statements in her
own behalf requesting receipt of no less than an honorable
discharge, based on her superior service. The staff judge
advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended
a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).
On 13 Aug 86, the discharge authority approved the general
discharge without P&R.
On 14 Aug 86, the applicant was discharged by reason of
misconduct drug abuse, with service characterized as general
(under honorable conditions). She was credited with 2 years,
6 months, and 14 days of active duty service.
________________________________________________________________
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 during the discharge process. 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 the service was contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or
disproportionate to the offenses committed. Considering her
overall record of service and the seriousness of the offenses
which led to her administrative separation, we are not persuaded
that an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge is
warranted on the basis of clemency. 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 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-2011-00632 in Executive Session on 1 December 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 11, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03683
For this misconduct, he received Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture of $167.00 pay and seven days correctional custody. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge authority. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Oct 14, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02783
On 10 Dec 70, the Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) reviewed the case and recommended disapproval stating there was insufficient justification to support a waiver of the one year ADSC. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. _________________________________________________________________ The following...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01355
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01355 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01472
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit H. AFLOA/JAJM addresses the applicants nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), and determines the applicants commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making the decision to punish the applicant under Article 15. In addition, while the Board notes the applicant was denied the opportunity to test for promotion during the 10E5 promotion cycle, the fact she did not test also constitutes a harmless error because she was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01823
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01823 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She would like her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 9 Jul 80. We took...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03197
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03197 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00884
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00884 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) be upgraded to honorable. The discharge authority recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge; however, the discharge process was deferred pending the outcome of a dual- action process on 9 Sep 85....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01472
She was unfairly denied an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) during her involuntary discharge. In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 6.2.2. the applicant qualified for an ADB hearing during her involuntary discharge proceeding because she had over 6 years of combined active and inactive service at the time of her separation. The Board notes the applicant did not contend she was the victim of reprisal in her original AFBCMR application, but notified the AFCMR of her claim of reprisal...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01276
However, as of Jan 14, there was no record of the Article 15 action. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM did not provide a recommendation; however, they noted the applicants request should be forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Center to have her DOR reviewed. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 9 Feb 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02926
On 20 Jan 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 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. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend the relief sought on...