Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01332
Original file (BC-2011-01332.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
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 commander’s 
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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 applicant’s 
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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01925

    Original file (BC-2004-01925.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (FD2006-00084.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-01934.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2012-04992.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X (denied...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03836

    Original file (BC-2012-03836.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (FD01-00044.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2011-04045.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2011-01255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (FD2001-0560.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (FD2002-0170.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...