RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03587
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His narrative reason for separation of Misconduct be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was traumatized in technical school and never received help
from the Air Force. This interfered with his conduct and
military career.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 December
1991.
The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to
recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions
of AFR 39-10 Misconduct. The specific reasons follow:
a. The applicant did between 15 July 1993 and 22 June
1994 receive numerous Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for the
underage consumption of alcohol, disobeying a lawful order, and
for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
b. The applicant did between 12 December 1992 and
16 December 1993 receive numerous Records of Counseling (ROCs)
for failing to go and refusing to obey an order.
c. The applicant did between 15 November 1993 and 21 June
1994 receive two Article 15s, Records of Nonjudicial Punishment
Proceedings, for failing to go and for leaving his appointed
place of duty without authority.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting
with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement on
his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the
assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient
and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred
with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 8 July
1994. He served 2 years 7 months and 4 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. They state the applicants service
to the Air Force reflects significant negative aspects (failures
to go and absence without authority) which outweigh his positive
contributions. A general discharge tells others that while the
applicant performed his duties in a generally acceptable manner,
his misconduct significantly detracted from his overall
performance. The applicants records show he was counseled by
supervisors, first sergeants, and commanders on various
occasions. The applicants retention on active duty was
determined not to be in the interest of the Air Force, nor
consistent with good order and discipline.
Discharge on the basis of a pattern of misconduct is amply
supported by the documentation of two actions under Article,
UCMJ, against the applicant.
Before recommending this discharge, the applicants commander
stated he ensured rehabilitation efforts were made. Despite
having had every opportunity to correct substandard behavior, the
applicant refused to take responsibility for his actions. The
applicant repeatedly demonstrated his unwillingness to adhere to
military standards. The applicant showed little rehabilitative
potential considering his repeated acts of misconduct.
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 applicant did not provide any evidence
that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his
discharge.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 November 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. The
applicants contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error
or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03587 in Executive Session on 16 April 2013, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03587 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 August 2012, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 November 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 November 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04303
DPSOR forwarded his case to the Secretary of the Air Force for a decision as to whether the Air Force would advance him on the Retired List to a higher grade than SrA when his time on active duty and time on the Retired List totaled 30 years in accordance with 10 USC §8964: Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members (a) Each retired member of the Air Force covered by subsection (b) who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01949
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) should have been initiated; instead he was administratively discharged. On 15 Oct 2012, his commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03587
JA states that because Anthrax Vaccination Program vaccination orders were inferred to be lawful at the time the applicant disobeyed his order, they opine that relief is not warranted. The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant states that only upon getting very sick after he received his second and third vaccination did he start to refuse further vaccinations....
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02298
On or about 18 Oct 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from sleeping during a meeting, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 30 Nov 11. c. On or about 30 Aug 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully returned late from lunch and refused to perform tasks assigned to him, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03445
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03445 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be returned to active duty for 11 days to attain a regular retirement rather than his early retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA). He was stationed in Misawa Japan; however, at that time he was not allowed to retire...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03777
On 2 June 2003, the applicant submitted a letter to his supervisor stating that he refused to provide any additional financial information to regain his security clearance. In his response, the applicant reiterates his contentions that he fulfilled the necessary requirement of paying into the MGIB and he served four years, which should allow him to use the MGIB to further his education. BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00733
He was taken to a DVA Regional hospital on 28 March 2013 and was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. On 22 March 2013, the applicant was honorably separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request for reinstatement to active duty and to be medically discharged at the highest grade held.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01900
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01900 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04545
On 3 Aug 09, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the applicants master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03779
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03779 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. In the...