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 applicants 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 Boards 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
applicants post-service activities, there is no way for us to
determine if the applicants 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
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00439
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
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
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
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
She made several inquiries in regards to the decedents 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
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
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
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
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
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;...