RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04283
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His general (under honorable conditions (UHC)) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
2. His Report of Individual Counseling (RIC), dated 3 Aug 06, be
removed from his records.
3. His second urinalysis be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. He believes his discharge to be unjust because of one isolated
event in an otherwise flawless and honorable service. He was
treated differently because he was a first term airman who did
not have the proper legal advice. He received 30 days extra
duty, an Article 15, and was demoted two grades. He feels that
he has paid his debt for the mistake he made.
2. His RIC should be removed from his record due to the fact that
RICs are only supposed to be a part of the Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) for 6 months.
3. The second urinalysis should be removed because it was taken
in place of the first urinalysis.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(Drug Abuse). The specific reason for this action was for drug
abuse. He received a RIC for failing to report to an official
function, an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana, and was
reduced to the rank of airman. The applicant acknowledged
receipt of the notification of his discharge and consulted with
legal counsel. He waived his right to submit statements in his
own behalf.
The applicant requested the AFDRB upgrade his discharge; however,
they concluded his discharge was properly administered and was
within the discharge authoritys discretion. The applicant
received a general (UHC) discharge on 25 Jun 08.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFMOA/SGH recommends denying the applicants request to remove
either of the urinalyses from his record. Their review of the
available documents reflects two distinct valid tests, with two
distinct valid results and there appears to be no reason to
recommend removal of either urinalysis.
The complete SGH evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denying the applicants request to remove
the RIC from his Personnel Information File (PIF) since the PIF
became obsolete when the applicant separated from the Air Force.
The Air Force Records Information Management System (AFIRMS)
shows that PIFs are retained in office file until superseded, no
longer needed, separation, or reassignment of individual when
they change duty stations. .
The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denying the applicant request to upgrade
his discharge. Based on the documents in the applicants
official records, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
instruction and was within the discharge authoritys discretion.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 8 Feb 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, this office has received no 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. In this
respect, 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 his service was
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly
harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. With
regard to the RIC and second urinalysis, we agree with the
assessments and recommendations of the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale that there is no
basis for approval of these requests and 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 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-2012-04283 in Executive Session on 16 May 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2012-
04283 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFMOA/SGH, dated 31 Oct 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 15 Nov 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, APFC/DPSOR, dated 22 Jan 13.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02748
His narrative reason for separation be removed and expunged from his military personnel and medical records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to change his narrative reason for discharge, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. A complete copy...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04735
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04735 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his application because he never knew he was able to receive his medical record nor did he know about the existence of the Board. The complete SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02353
In response, his commander withdrew the Article 15 and issued him an LOR. On 3 May 12, the applicant provided a rebuttal response to the LOR. The specific reason for the discharge action was the applicant provided a controlled substance (oxycodone) to another military member (his spouse).
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01279
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01279 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His SF 88, Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 Aug 68, be removed from his records. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFMOA/SGH recommends removal of page two of the applicants SF 88, dated 16 Aug 68. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03365
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03365 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder be removed from her military medical records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFMOA/SGH recommends denial...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01939 ADDENDUM
Also chart on mandibular arch missing teeth 17, 31, and 32. c. SF Form 93, Item 25, add note all maxillary teeth missing 1-16, replaced by complete denture. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 March 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit K). We note that based on the medical and dental documentation provided by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03985
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03985 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Standard Form (SF) 88, Report of Medical Examination, and SF 93, Report of Medical History, both dated 2 Oct 73, be removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The SF 88 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01607
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01607 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The handwritten note stating that he was injured in 1958 be removed from his medical records. The DVA opined the applicants condition existed prior to service. We took notice of the available evidence of record and the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01258
The Air Force gives airman who have served over 16 years on active duty an additional opportunity for P&R based on lengthy service. Further, AFI 36-3208 states alcohol abusing airmen who fail a program of treatment for alcohol abuse because of their inability to comply with treatment are subject to discharge if they also lack the potential for continued military service. Therefore, even if he had failed ADAPT, there was no basis for discharge under AFI 36-3208 because he demonstrated...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02033
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02033 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The entry of his name in the Air Force Family Advocacy Program (FAP) Central Registry Board (CRB) for Incident Status Determination Review (ISDR) cases 20110141 and 20110142 be removed along with all associated records. The applicants case was...