AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01951
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his court-martial was unjust. His work performance
was questioned and attempts were made to discredit him. He has
obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting Control
Systems and is employed with the Department of the Interior.
In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a copy of his
bachelor’s degree.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 July 1992.
On 1 April 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander of
his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific
reasons are as follows:
a. On or about 3 December 1994, the applicant stole a
compact disc of a value of about $11.94, the property of the Army
and Air Force Exchange Service. For this misconduct he received
punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
b. On 8 October 1996, the applicant attempted to steal
$669.00 from the base exchange by requesting a refund for the
return of a camcorder which was not his property. For this
misconduct he was court-martialed.
c. On 9 October 1996, the applicant was found in violation
of dorm inspection rules during a routine dorm inspection. For
this misconduct he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).
d. On or about 12 February 1997, the applicant was found in
violation of dorm inspection rules. The room was found to be
unsatisfactory for the third time. For this misconduct he
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).
He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected to submit
a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case
file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient
and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred
with the recommendation and directed a general discharge. The
applicant was discharged on 29 April 1997. He served 4 years,
8 months and 15 days on active duty.
On 22 April 1998, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
considered and denied the applicant’s request that his general
discharge be upgraded to honorable (Exhibit B).
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation indicated 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. 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. Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon
which to recommend granting the relief sought.
2
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-01951 in Executive Session on 1 November 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-01951 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 April 2012, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
3
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01951
The Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) also committed a clerical error claiming he had received $525 from an AFROTC scholarship from 1 April 1998 to 15 July 1998. He did receive a copy of the order releasing him from the Air Force Reserves as it was provided as his evidence; therefore, he was fully aware of the SGLI charges. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
The board, however, did find that, on 28 February 1994, the applicant falsified an official document, the AF Form 24, that indicated she had graduated from the USC with a Chemical Engineering degree. On 25 April 1997, the Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) reviewed the PODB’s decision and agreed that the applicant should not be retained in the Air Force. The records indicate her service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00586
h. On 15 October 1986, the applicant failed to report for duty at the prescribed time, for which he received written counseling. For this misconduct, the applicant was counseled. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00407
After considering all the matters presented, his commander determined that he committed the offenses alleged. She states that despite the fact the property was found in the residence of SSgt R---, the elements of the Article 121 offense of wrongful appropriation are met if the property appropriated was for “his own use or the use of any other person other than the owner.” The SJA cites the legal review for the applicant’s NJP appeal, which apparently states that, “He permitted a coworker to...
AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00269
The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, one for wrongfully using marijuana and for wrongfully using Corciden, and the other for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and for willfully disobeying a lawful command, a Letter of Reprimand for damaging government property, injuring his hand, fleeing the scene of the crime, and refusing to answer questions, and one Record of Individual Counseling for failing a monthly dorm room inspection. ...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00341
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR, SIGNATURE OF TO: FROM: SAF , SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL " AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET T, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04436
DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Sep 12 for review and comment within 15...
Axis 11: Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Mgmt Spec, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states this case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. This evaluation in July 1996 resulted in a diagnosis of Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified as noted in a letter to his commander signed by a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00586
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which confirms the applicant’s admitted two DUI incidents and is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02158
Denying his degree is excessive punishment for his actions. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a cadet at the USAFA Air Force Academy from 26 June 2006 through 13 May 2013. The basis of the applicants disenrollment is sufficient to deny his degree from the USAFA.