RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02115
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) character of service be
upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When she was on active duty she was young and dumb and did not
respect her position and assignments as she should have. She
was late to work on several occasions and was classified as
absent without leave (AWOL) once when her driver got lost
returning back to the Air Force base from a weekend in
California. They were two hours late. Since she has grown up,
she recognizes the error of her ways and respectfully requests
the Board take this into consideration as they evaluate her
request to upgrade the character of her discharge.
The letters of recommendation she submits reflect her
willingness to work and the respect she now has for her
responsibilities. Even though she can no longer be a caregiver,
she is on track to remain in the medical field taking into
account her physical disabilities after a near fatal auto
accident on 29 December 2010. She would like to continue her
veteran status in a more positive light and also take part in
veterans benefits.
In support of her request the applicant submits letters of
recommendation and a copy of a psychological evaluation dated
22 August 2011.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to documents extracted from her military personnel
records, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on
2 July 1990 and was progressively promoted to the grade of
Airman (Amn), E-2, with a date of rank of 2 January 1991.
On 14 August 1991, the applicant received a nonjudicial
punishment in the form of an Article 15 for violation of Article
86, Absence without Leave, for failure to go at the time
prescribed to her appointed place of duty. Her punishment
consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 per month for two months and a
reduction to the grade of Airman Basic (AB), E-1, (suspended
until 13 February 1992) after which time it would be remitted
without further action unless sooner vacated.
On 27 September 1991, the applicants suspended reduction to the
grade of Airman Basic was vacated with a new date of rank of
14 August 1991, as punishment for the offense of being derelict
in the performance of her duties on 13 September 1991, in that
she negligently failed to inspect two parachutes and helmets, as
it was her duty to do.
The applicant was released from active duty on 7 February 1992,
and was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 6 days of active
duty service.
On 3 December 2012, a request for information pertaining to her
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for
response within 30 days (Exhibit C). To date, this office has
not received a response.
________________________________________________________________
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, 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. In the
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based
on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted 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 this application
BC-2012-02115 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 21 May 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR dated 3 December 2012.
Panel Chair
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03474
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of her request to upgrade her discharge. The applicant was, however, punished not by her immediate supervisor based on his personal evaluation of her, but by her squadron commander for the repeated failure to report for duty on time. With respect to her request that her rank be restored to SrA, the...
1 7 , an officer who fails to withdraw a declination statement and accept promotion after four months from the date the declination statement was signed, will be removed from the promotion list. A complete copy of the Air Force eval.uation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he request his case be dismissed on the grounds that the 14 September 1998 SSB has already convened. On 13 February...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00684
The AF Form 1168 did not list all the charges preferred against her and her Article 31 rights were violated which is reason to question the entire investigation. The form on which the applicant acknowledged and waived her Article 31 rights only indicates she was suspected of a false official statement; however, TSgt P. provided a memorandum for record stating she did orally tell the applicant of each allegation and there is additional evidence supporting the applicants guilt besides her...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02826
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02826 INDEX CODE: 111.05 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 APR 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 1 September 2002 be declared void and removed from her records. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00661
His condition be evaluated by an active duty Medical Evaluation Board (MED) to determine if a medical retirement is appropriate. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individuals record. Should the Board remove the 7 June 2005 Article 15 vacating the suspended reduction in grade, the applicants rank would be restored to SSgt with a date of rank of 20 December 1999.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00112
Records indicate that he did not elect to participate during these timeframes. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 September 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01329
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge was upgraded to honorable by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and that she is requesting her RE code to be changed so that she can reenlist in the Air Force. On 14 Feb 06, the AFDRB reviewed all of the evidence of record and concluded that the overall quality of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02646
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was an asset to the Air Force when she was on active duty. They conducted a review of the applicant’s personnel file and considered all documentation submitted by the applicant. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that she really wants to be able...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02568
A set aside of an Article 15 is the removal of the punishment from the record and the restoration of the service members rights, privileges, pay or property affected by the punishment. The applicant alleges injustice in that the commander failed to accept his excuse for his failure to replace a damaged tire on an aircraft he was responsible for recovering. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05170
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05170 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable, so she may reenter the Air Force or another branch of the Armed Forces. On 24 Jan 07, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to...