RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01332
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was judged as exhibiting misconduct because he refused to
surrender his weapon to someone other than the armorer.
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for security forces
personnel dictate weapons can only be surrendered to the
armorer. His platoon sergeant requested that he surrender his
weapon and he refused.
The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of
his request.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 28 March 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air
Force.
On 10 July 2002, the applicant was notified of his commanders
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under
the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force Military Training and
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5,
section h, paragraph 5.49, Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge.
The specific reasons for this action were: 1) On 18 July and
13 August 2001, the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand
(LORs) for violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) for failure to obey a lawful order or regulation;
2) On 27 August 2001, he received a LOR for lying to his
technical training school instructors; 3) On 23 January 2002, he
received a LOR for failing to report to mandatory physical
training; 4) On 3 May 2002, he received a LOR for failing to
complete his career development courses (CDCs); 5) On 17 May
2002, he received a LOR for reporting late to a flight
formation; 6) On 21 May 2002, he received a LOR , establishment
of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and was placed on the
control roster for violations of Articles 86 and 92, UCMJ, for
failure to go and failure to obey an order or regulation); 7) On
4 June 2002, he received an Article 15 for violation of Article
113, UCMJ for misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout. His
punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman, with a
new date of rank (DOR) of 4 June 2002, forfeiture of $200 per
month for two months (however it was suspended until 3 December
2002, after which time it was to be remitted without further
action unless sooner vacated), a reprimand, restriction to the
base and extra duty for 30 days; 8) On 17 and 26 June 2002, he
received two LORs for failure to report back to his place of
duty, having alcohol in his dorm room, possession of an illegal
weapon, and failure to comply with Air Force dress and
appearance standards.
On 11 July 2002, the applicant consulted counsel and stated he
was going to submit a statement on his own behalf. However, the
applicant failed to submit a written statement within three
days, thereby waiving his rights.
On 16 July 2002, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended to the
Wing Commander that the applicant be discharged and issued a
general discharge without suspension for probation and
rehabilitation. On 23 July 2002, the discharge authority
approved the applicants discharge. On 26 July 2002, the
applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman.
He served 1 year, 3 months and 28 days of total active service.
On 25 September 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board
denied the applicants request for upgrade of his general (under
honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, change his
narrative reason and authority for discharge, and reentry code.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI) Clarksburg, WV, states they were unable to
identify an arrest record on the basis of the information
furnished.
________________________________________________________________
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
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no evidence
to indicate that his discharge from the Air Force was
inappropriate, or that the actions taken to affect his discharge
and the characterization of his service were improper, contrary
to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the
time, or based on factors other than his own behavior and
inability to comply with standards. We also find insufficient
evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be
upgraded on the basis of clemency. We considered the applicants
overall record of service and the events which precipitated the
discharge; however, we do not find the evidence presented is
sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought
on that basis. 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-2011-01332 in Executive Session on 21 July 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 March 2011.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01925
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. On 8 May 2002, the applicant received an LOC for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, resulting in vacation of his Article 15 Nonjudicial Punishment, reducing him to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 27 November 2001. ...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00084
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NlJMBER FD~2006-00084 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. If you are discharged, you will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force, and any special pay, bonus, or education assistance funds may be subject...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01934
On 10 August 1982, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to report for duty at the prescribed time, 0800 hours on 9 August 1982, after a two-day leave he had taken. Therefore, he did not recommend further rehabilitation because of negative response to Letters of Reprimand and Counseling. OLGA M. CRERAR Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01934 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04992
On 9 May 2012, the applicant submitted an additional response to his denial of reenlistment and demotion action because he indicated that he just received the ROI. On 19 September 2012, by authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, his 3 August 2012 request for redress filed under Article 138 was denied as the actions taken by the command were determined to be appropriate to the circumstances. The applicants discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X (denied...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03836
However, his chain of command fabricated two additional LORs in order to involuntarily dismiss him from the military, and then denied his reenlistment in Mar 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an...
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00044
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-0 1-00044 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Attachment : Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE A I R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD F D - 0 1 - 0 0 0 4 4 ( Former AMN) 1 . For this, he received a Letter of Counseling (Atch 1.1); b.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04045
His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from his record. JAJM states the applicant does not allege an error in how the Article 15 was processed. We note the applicant alleges that the nonjudicial punishment he received in December 2010 was unfair in that, as an alleged unintended consequence, it rendered him ineligible to test for promotion to the next rank before he was otherwise required to separate from active service.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01255
On 28 June 1988, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman basic. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2001-0560
T CONCLUSIONS: The board concludes there is no legal or equitable basis to upgrade or change the applicant’s discharge or re-cnlistment code, Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2001-0560 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD Jeni hipes (Former A1lC) (HGH Aic) ae 1. The commander recommended the respondent be separated from the Air Force with a General Discharge without Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R). For the Government: A preponderance of the evidence...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0170
i 4 t CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | gpo002-0170 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. Recommend that 3 AF/CC discharge the respondent with an honorable discharge, with or without P&R. Attachment: Case File F 22002 - 017 O DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE — UNITEG STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE 30 JUL 1997 MEMORANDUM FOR AMB 4 FROM: 22 FS/CC SUBJECT: Notification Letter 1, FT am recommending your discharge from the United States...