RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04804
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated in the United States Air Force or, as an
alternative, his characterization of discharge be upgraded from
general (under honorable conditions) to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unfairly discharged as there was insufficient basis for
the discharge. His reprimands were controversial and he made a
reprisal complaint against his supervisor which was never
investigated.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement, a statement from his counselor, and copies of his
discharge file.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
served on active duty from 4 January 2011 to 14 March 2013.
The applicant received one Letter of Counseling (LOC) and four
Letters of Reprimand (LORs) between 4 November 2011 and
19 December 2012. On 23 January 2013, he was notified of his
commanders intent of recommending him for a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge for Misconduct Minor
Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant acknowledged receipt
of his commanders notification and submitted a statement in his
own behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally
sufficient, the discharge authority approved the separation and
directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation or
rehabilitation.
The applicant was released from active duty on 13 March 2013 and
discharged effective 14 March 2013 with a general (under
honorable conditions) characterization of service and a
narrative reason for separation as Misconduct: Minor
Disciplinary Infractions. He served 2 years, 2 months, and 11
days on active duty.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that based on the
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the
discharge, to include the separation program designator (SPD)
code, narrative reason for separation, and characterization of
service, was appropriately administered and within the
discretion of his discharge authority. The applicant did not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the
discharge processing.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
_
COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He respectfully requests a reexamination of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) definition of false official statement
and the removal of this alleged offense from consideration of
his clients request for either reinstatement onto active duty
or an upgrade to his discharge characterization.
The counsels complete rebuttal is at 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 took notice
of the applicant's complete submission to include counsels
rebuttal in judging the merits of the case; however, the Air
Force office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed
these contentions and we are in agreement with their
recommendation. While we note the applicants counsel believes
an error occurred with regard to the applicants official
statement, sufficient evidence has not been provided which
would persuade us that the commander acted inappropriately in
deciding to issue the applicant a Letter of Reprimand or that
his decision represented an abuse of discretionary authority in
making that decision. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in 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 issues 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-2013-04823 in Executive Session on 24 June 2014, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04823:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Dec 13.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, Counsel, dated 23 May 14.
Panel Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03779
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03779 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. In the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05570
On 7 April 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge to Honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in the processing of the discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05669
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05669 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 12 September 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04598
On 25 Jan 2011, he was discharged from the Air Force, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02353
In response, his commander withdrew the Article 15 and issued him an LOR. On 3 May 12, the applicant provided a rebuttal response to the LOR. The specific reason for the discharge action was the applicant provided a controlled substance (oxycodone) to another military member (his spouse).
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04905
DPSOR recommends that his narrative reason for separation be changed from Convenience of the Government to Unsatisfactory Performance. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicants request to change his RE code to a 1. DPSOA states that on 28 Aug 2012, his commander approved his involuntary discharge with an honorable character of service for failure to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05526
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating the applicants separation orders have been amended to reflect the correct service characterization intended by the discharge authority and a copy has been placed in the applicants record. On 6 Sep 12, the Air Force Review Boards Agency, acting under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Air Force, denied the applicants request for Lengthy Service Probation...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02093
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02093 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. His misconduct in this case, as evidenced by the one Article 15, three letters of reprimand, one record of counseling, and three letters of counseling, which occurred during...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01949
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) should have been initiated; instead he was administratively discharged. On 15 Oct 2012, his commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00398
________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 29 November 2005. The applicant did not provide any 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.