Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04173
Original file (BC 2013 04173.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04173
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to “Honorable.”


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She served honorably for three years and a few minor incidents 
caused her discharge.  She has grown tremendously and would like 
to move forward with her life, which includes upgrading her 
discharge to honorable.

The applicant believes that the Board should find it in the 
interest of justice to consider her untimely application because 
she has matured since her discharge and an upgrade would benefit 
her family.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 May 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.

On 27 July 2006, her commander notified her that he was 
recommending she be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-
32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49.  The 
specific reasons for his action were:

    On 24 July 2004, she was riding as a passenger in a vehicle 
with a fellow airman who was intoxicated.  To complicate the 
matter, she was uncooperative and disrespectful with the 
Department of Public Safety Trooper and was charged with public 
intoxication.  This is evidenced by a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
dated 28 July 2004.

    On 28 July 2004, she failed to report to her appointed place 
of duty.  This is evidenced by an Article 15 dated 6 August 2004 
and the establishment of an Unfavorable Information File.

    On 27 August 2004, she, as a minor, was in possession of 
alcohol.  This is evidenced by the Vacation Action dated 
2 September 2004.

    On 4 July 2006, she was involved in a domestic disturbance 
with her boyfriend resulting in physical altercation that led to 
her arrest by a local law enforcement officer.  This is 
evidenced by an LOR dated 6 July 2006.

    On 12 July 2006, she was derelict in the performance of her 
duties when she removed her weapon belt after being told to 
return to her post.  Furthermore, she failed to obey a direct 
order given to her by a noncommissioned officer.  This is 
evidenced by an LOR dated 19 July 2006.

On 27 July 2006, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification, consulted with counsel and on 31 July 
2006, she submitted a statement in her behalf.

On 3 August 2006, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient.

On 4 August 2006, the discharge authority directed that she be 
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge.

On 10 August 2006, she received a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  She served 3 years, 2 months and 14 days 
of active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the 
data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record.

On 25 April 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C), 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.  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 the service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on 
clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the 
applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to 
determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the 
service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct 
for which he was discharged.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 7 August 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-
04173 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 August 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, digitally signed 25 April 2014





FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00439

    Original file (FD2006-00439.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I I Sk;CREl'ARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used ' I I AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2006-00439 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, three Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00260

    Original file (FD2005-00260.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Admonishment and four Records of Individual Counseling (RIC's) for misconduct. In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. RIC, 02 FEB 04 - Failure to prepare the JAPI Physiology test.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05267

    Original file (BC 2013 05267.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05267 COUNSEL: NONE CHARLES E. PHILLIPS HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to “Honorable.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was very young and financial problems caused his discharge. On 30 August 1991, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 6 July 2014, a request for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00353

    Original file (BC 2014 00353.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00353 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive Physician Additional Special Pay (ASP) from 2010 to 2013. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She thought when she filed for her specialty pay bonuses in 2010 that the ASP was part of the Multi-year Incentive Special Pay (MISP) and Multi-year Special Pay (MSP) contracts she submitted, but it was not. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00961

    Original file (BC 2013 00961.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She made several inquiries in regards to the decedent’s elected survivor benefits, only to be told each time that she was not eligible due to his type of retirement. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating the decedent was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03551

    Original file (BC-2005-03551.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The available records indicate the following. On 25 January 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her UOTHC discharge to honorable. On 14 January 2003, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and partially approved the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03015

    Original file (BC 2013 03015.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04059

    Original file (BC 2013 04059.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 August 2008, the IPEB found the applicant fit and recommended “Return to Duty,” finding the medical condition "does not prevent you from reasonably performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating." Therefore, the Medical Consultant concludes the applicant's MS was not a medically unfitting condition at the time of separation and proper administrative procedures followed for determining fitness for duty. Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 26 May 2014.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02984

    Original file (BC 2013 02984.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02984 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of “3A” (First-term airman who separates before completing 36 months on current enlistment and who has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions except grade, skill level, and insufficient Total Active...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00394

    Original file (BC 2014 00394.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would very much like the Board to review his file and upgrade his discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis. 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;...