RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00148
COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was the victim of a personality conflict with is supervisor. In his first year on base, his performance reports always contained good remarks. When his new supervisor first arrived on base, he roomed with the applicant for a few weeks until he found housing. Even though the applicants performance did not change, his performance reports became much more negative under this new supervisor. Despite multiple requests to move to another reporting official, he was never given any help.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 28 Feb 85.
On 27 Feb 87, the applicants supervisor referred his Airman Performance Report (APR) covering the period 28 Feb 86 through 27 Feb 87 to him because it contained comments concerning his substandard duty performance, tardiness, and lack of self-motivation.
On 20 Jul 87, the applicants commander notified him that he was recommending him to be discharged from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions. The reasons for this action were that between 6 Mar 86 and 26 Jun 87 the applicant:
a. Received two verbal counselings and six letters of counseling (LOCs) for working without proper safety equipment, showing a lack of urgency when donning his gas mask and only wearing one bootie, reporting late for duty four times, being out of compliance with AFR 35-10, falling 60-days behind in paying his Enlisted Club bill, and unsatisfactory duty performance.
b. Received four letters of reprimand (LORs) for failing to obey a lawful order to get a haircut, failing to report an accident to the Security Police, failing to comply with AFR 35-10, failing to comply with duty hours by reporting late for duty on three different days, and fraudulently using a vehicle excise license.
c. Received non-judicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer. For this he was punished by 30-days in correctional custody.
d. Was placed on the control roster due to substandard duty performance.
On 20 Jul 87, applicants commander recommended him for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.
On 24 Jul 87, the applicants supervisor referred his APR covering the period 28 Feb 87 through 3 Aug 87 because it contained comments concerning the applicants failure to perform his duties properly and his lack of concern for Air Force standards of dress and appearance.
On 24 Aug 87, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.
On 11 Sep 87, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, a narrative reason for separation of misconductpattern of minor disciplinary infractions, and was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active service.
On 18 Oct 13, a request for post-service information 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. Rather, in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), actions by this Board are limited to corrections to the record to reflect actions taken by the reviewing officials and action on the sentence of the court-martial for the purpose of clemency. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the UCMJ. We have considered the applicants overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses to which convicted. In addition, we considered upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find sufficient evidence concerning his post-service activities to warrant relief on this basis. Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists for us 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 material 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-2013-00148 in Executive Session on XXX 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Oct 13, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0177
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDIN.E ENITIAL) “ GRADE AFSN/SSAN ” AB tee = 7 - . CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 1'1902-0177 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Major eh recommended that Senior Airman be fesued an under other than honorable conditions discharge without suspension for probation and rehabilitation (P & R)- After consulting legal counsel, Senior Airman QQ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03126
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03126 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded and his Reentry (RE) code of 2B (involuntarily separated under AFR 39- 10, with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge)...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03363
The commander also recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge. On 30 Jun 87, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the Installation Commander that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated in his response to the Air Force evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01837
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01837 (CASE 5) INDEX CODES: 135.00, 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge of 13 May 94 be remanded to the Air Force Reserve, allowing for his application to retire on a date consistent with 31 Oct 94, and, his request for retirement be approved at the last grade he held. ...
Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00673
f. On 3 Dec 87, he received a Record of Individual Counseling for failure to report to work on time. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master...
The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the LOCs and LORs on file were submitted by his supervisor (SSgt P.). Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02154
The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the LOCs and LORs on file were submitted by his supervisor (SSgt P.). Exhibit B.
Based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. Facts of military justice action: On 24 Jul89, the applicant (then Sergwt) was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for: (1) failing to go to his appointed place of duty, i.e., the LOX service plant, at the time prescribed, on 15 3ul89, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and, (2) for being derelict in the performance of his duties on 15 Jul89, by failing to service the LOX...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00056
ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN ma | TYPE PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW COUNSEL uj.) CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD03-0056 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. And, ten Records of Individual Counseling for driving an uninsured vehicle, violation of AFR 35-10 (four times), failure to meet physical fitness standards, failure to...