RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05756
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the discharge was unfair and not a true reflection
of his character of service. He served honorably throughout his
time in the service. He received an Article 15 for failing to
use a technical order while performing a visual inspection of a
plane. He was told by a senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO)
that he was not being graded during the assessment and that is
the reason he feels he was treated unfairly; he failed that
portion of the inspection.
Another incident happened during his participation in a
mandatory physical training. He received an LOR for not running
during the run portion of the test regardless of having a
profile.
Bottom line, he believes if these two examples of unwarranted
and biased issues had not been placed in his record he would not
have been discharged for a Pattern of Misconduct.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, copies of character statements.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 14 Feb 01.
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,
for a pattern of misconduct. The specific reason for this
action was for reporting late for duty on several occasions;
failing to perform a safety check using Technical Order 005-1;
being drunk on duty and reporting late; and for failing to obey
a lawful order. He received two LORs and two Article 15s for
his actions. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification.
On 10 March 2009, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the
applicants request to upgrade his discharge concluding that the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was with the
discharge authoritys discretion. The applicant received a
general (UHC) discharge on 15 Jun 05 after serving 4 years,
4 months, and 3 days on active duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant contends that his
discharge was unfair and not a true reflection of his character
of service; however, he was discharged for a pattern of
misconduct and not an isolated incident of misconduct that
resulted in two LORs and two Article 15s. Therefore, based on
the documentation in the applicants records, he clearly had
acts of misconduct to form the basis of his discharge. Further,
the applicants discharge to include his characterization of
service 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 C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He requests a personal hearing before the Board at his own
personal expense because he truly feels that an injustice has
been done by not upgrading his discharge.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
_
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 careful
consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication
the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in
effect at the time, or the actions taken against the applicant
were based on factors other than his own misconduct. In
addition, we are not persuaded that the characterization of the
applicants discharge warrants an upgrade to honorable on the
basis of clemency. Having found no error or injustice with
regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a
military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant
favorable action on his request.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
________________________________________________________________
_
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-2012-05756 in Executive Session on 12 Sep 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary for Docket Number BC-2012-05756
evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Feb 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03587
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. 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. Based on the documentation on...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-05443
DPSOR states the applicants service characterization, narrative reason for separation and separation code is [sic] correct as reflected on his DD Form 214. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03662
On 10 April 1986, he reported late for duty and received an LOR. DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge process, and provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service. After careful consideration of the available evidence and in the absence of evidence by the applicant to the contrary, we believe that the actions taken to effect his discharge were proper and in compliance with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02797
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02797 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) and separation program designator (SPD) codes be revised to allow him the opportunity for reenlistment into the Air Force or other military service. The applicant received an involuntary discharge with a narrative reason for...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01412
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01412 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His non-judicial punishment (NJP), received on 16 Sep 13, under Article 15 be removed from his military record. The applicants discharge case went to the SAFPC for review and decision as to whether or not to administratively discharge the applicant or allow him to be permanently retired.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02429
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02429 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B (Separated with general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge) be changed to allow him to renter the military. He received a RE code of 2B (Separated with a general or UOTHC discharge), based on his general discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR,...
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-2012-04705
On 21 April 2008, his commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions and Misconduct: Drug Abuse, under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.50.2. and 5.54. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation...