Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00931
Original file (BC-2011-00931.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00931 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She served honorably, and the fact she was overweight did not 
impede her ability to serve or to do the job she was trained to 
do. 

 

She is proud to have served in the United States Air Force and 
would gladly do so again. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 17 Aug 77, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and 
was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. 

 

She received six (6) Airman Performance Reports (APRs) with 
overall ratings of 9, 9, 8, 9, 7, and 6, respectively. 

 

On 12 Apr 83, the applicant was notified by her commander that he 
was recommending her discharge from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 5-26, for unsatisfactory performance. The reasons for 
the proposed action were: 1) On 22 Oct and 23 Nov 82, the 
applicant was counseled for being delinquent in the payment of 
her Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Club account; 2) On 22 Dec 82, 
the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being 
delinquent in the payment of her NCO Club account; and 3) On 
10 Jan 83, the applicant was counseled for being delinquent in 
the payment of her NCO Club account. 

 

The applicant received several disciplinary actions relating to 
failure to maintain military weight standards and financial 
responsibilities. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, 
and after consulting with counsel, waived her right to submit 
statements in her own behalf. 


 

The staff judge advocate (SJA) found the case legally sufficient 
to support discharge and noted that despite efforts of 
rehabilitation, the applicant failed to conduct herself in a 
manner commensurate with acceptable military standards. The SJA 
further noted that in determining whether an applicant should be 
discharged or retained, the entire military record may be 
considered. However, in determining the type of discharge, only 
matters in the present enlistment beginning 29 May 81 should be 
considered. 

 

On 25 Apr 83, the discharge authority approved the discharge and 
directed a general discharge. 

 

On 27 Apr 83, the applicant was discharged and received a general 
discharge. She served on active duty for a period of 5 years, 
8 months and 11 days. 

 

Pursuant to the request of the Board on 8 Apr 11, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 
14 Apr 11, that, on the basis of the data furnished, they were 
unable to locate 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 the service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-00931 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02160

    Original file (BC-2012-02160.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02160 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. While the applicant contends her two years of service merit an honorable discharge, we find no evidence or an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process. It...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 0101270

    Original file (0101270.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05845

    Original file (BC 2013 05845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05845 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, due to the applicantÂ’s failure to provide information regarding his post-service activities, we cannot conclude that such...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01166

    Original file (BC-2006-01166.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Nov 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of staff sergeant. ___________________________________________________________________ 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. A complete copy of the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00632

    Original file (BC-2005-00632.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81, for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 29 Nov 83, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01592

    Original file (BC-2006-01592.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01592 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. They were given rehabilitation and did not get discharged. He is just asking the Board at this time for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00117

    Original file (BC-2006-00117.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She took her oath of office and became a member of the Air Force on 29 Mar 63, which would credit her with over 20 years of service for purposes of qualifying her for the CRDP. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00218

    Original file (BC-2006-00218.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00218 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUL 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). The evidence of record indicates the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02897

    Original file (BC 2014 02897.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this offense she was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2) (suspended until 1 Aug 82), forfeiture of $50 per month for two months, and 30 days extra duty. On 10 Apr 86, the applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with counsel. The Board denied the applicantÂ’s request to upgrade her discharge and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority...