RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03805
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge is unjust and will affect him for the rest of his
life. He admits to his mistake, however, his punishment was too
harsh and he asks the Board to give him a second chance.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to Reserve Order A-066, the applicant was discharged
from the Air Force Reserve effective 28 Nov 2006. His service
was characterized as general (under other than honorable
conditions). His narrative reason for separation is
Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Drug Abuse.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/AIK recommends denial. A1K states that on 13 Jul 2010, the
Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) concluded the overall
quality of the applicants service was more accurately reflected
by a general (under honorable conditions) character of service.
A change to his narrative reason for discharge or reenlistment
eligibility was denied. On 15 Sep 2010, Reserve Order A-152 was
issued reflecting his upgraded service characterization. He has
not provided any new or relevant evidence that warrants
favorable consideration of his request.
The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 15 Oct 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit
D).
________________________________________________________________
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 note that
the AFDRB upgraded the characterization of the applicants
discharge to general (under honorable conditions) due to his
overall quality of service. However, the AFDRB did not believe
that a change to his narrative reason for separation or
reenlistment eligibility was warranted. It is our opinion that
the applicant has submitted no convincing evidence warranting
further remedy beyond that already afforded him by the AFDRB.
Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis on which to
favorably consider this application.
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(s)
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 this application
in Executive Session on 30 Apr 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-03805:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 10 Oct 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR 15 Oct 2012.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00326
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00326 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was transferred to the retired reserve on 18 Nov 11 rather than being honorably discharged for drug abuse. On 11 and 14 Apr 11, an administrative discharge board (ADB) was convened to determine whether or not the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02220
On 23 Sep 03, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge, concluding that his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Lastly, the applicant was not entitled to a DD Form 214 at the time of his discharge from the USAFR because he was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01452
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01452 INDEX CODE: A94.05/06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: While it is not readily apparent, it appears the applicant is requesting that his General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his former rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored. On...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01953
The complete HQ AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states that since the applicant has not provided documentation that warrants HQ AFRC/SGs support of her assertion, there is no basis for the requested change. The complete HQ AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant questions the legality of her discharge and the whereabouts of her...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05059
She had a break in service from 4 Nov 10 until 14 Jan 11, at which time she reenlisted in the Reserve. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Therefore, the applicants correct...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05036
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. For the first time in history, service members enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program are able to transfer unused educational...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03396
________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be entitled to a Reserve Officer Affiliation Bonus since his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 64PX/Contracting, was listed on the 13 Jan 12, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) Critical Skills Officer Incentive Eligible Skills memo. AFRC/AlKP appears to have interpreted Title 37 USC Section 308j in a manner that allowed them to add a caveat to the Commander's program...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2013-01202
He was set-up by Chief Master Sergeant M----- and the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Headquarters personnel in retaliation for filing a CI. On 2 Oct 06, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) disapproved the applicants application for retirement submitted on 31 Jan 06 and stated that retirement at this time was not considered in the best interest in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02002
Subsequently, it was determined the former content of AFI 2503, Administrative Demotion of Airman, and AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dated 6 Aug 02, would continue to be used as the procedural guidance to implement the AFR Enlisted Demotion and Promotion Policy. We took note of the applicant’s arguments regarding the validity of the demotion instructions ,however, we agree with AFRC/A1K recommendation that the use of the former AFI 36-2503 and Air 36-2502 as the procedural guidance...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05910
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial, stating that the applicant's transfer to the Reserve Retired List (awaiting pay at age 60) effective 1 Sep 04 resulted from him being found medically disqualified for continued military service based on a medical condition that was not service connected. He was later transferred from the Reserve Retired List to the USAF Retired List, effective 14 Nov 09 (age 60) which...