RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05100
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not get along with his first sergeant and was denied a
transfer out of the squadron.
The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to
consider his request as the upgrade of his discharge is required
for employment purposes.
In support of his request, the applicant provides letters of
support and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 Jul 96, the applicant entered active duty.
On 26 Feb 98, the applicants commander informed him that he was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force In Accordance
With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen,
paragraph 5.50.2. The specific reasons for the recommendation
include a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for disorderly conduct, LOR
and placement on the control roster for accumulating more than
12 traffic violation points, an Article 15 for failure to pay
his debts, Letters of Counseling (LOC) for dereliction in the
performance of his duties and a LOR and Unfavorable Information
File (UIF) for misuse of his government travel card. The
applicant was scheduled for an appointment to consult with legal
counsel.
On 2 Mar 98, the staff judge advocate determined the discharge
recommendation was legally sufficient.
On 3 Mar 98, the discharge authority approved the discharge
recommendation.
On 4 Mar 98, he was discharged with service characterized as
general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for
separation of Misconduct.
He served 1 year, 8 months and 2 days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Boards request, on 27 Jan 14, the Air Force
Office of Special Investigation (OSI) confirmed a criminal
history investigation does exist.
On 31 Jul 14, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities
since leaving the service (Exhibit C). In a letter dated 5 Aug
14, he states that he deployed as a contract employee in support
of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) where he built wireless
networks at 30 sites. He completed ground school and deployed
under the U.S. Navy. Upon return from deployment, he worked for
20 months as a senior network engineer and provides letters of
recommendation for his services. He is currently working as a
senior telecom analyst. The arrest record on file was due to a
bad check. He paid the bill and cleared his name. There was a
warrant out of the county and he spent a couple nights in jail.
He is 37 years old with a wife and three kids and didnt know
enough to protect himself.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, letters of support and a certificate of training.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his
rebuttal response, 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,
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to
conclude that the applicants post-service activities 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
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 Docket Number BC-
2013-05100 in Executive Session 9 and 24 Sep 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. AFBCMR Letter, dated 31 Jul 14, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Aug 14, w/atchs.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00251 INDEX CODES: 131.00, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the effective date for his promotion to the grade of master sergeant as 1 Apr 96, rather than 1 Nov 97, with back and allowances. DPPPWB believes the applicant needs to provide a copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01104
Applicant's EPR profile since 1992 follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 29 Mar 92 5 29 Mar 93 5 29 Mar 94 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 96 5 31 Jan 97 5 31 Jan 98 5 31 Jan 99 5 31 Jan 00 5 31 Jan 01 5 * 31 Mar 02 4 (referral) 1 Jan 03 5 * Contested report. He indicated that at the time his EPR would have closed out, the applicant was under investigation for an alleged assault incident that occurred on 25 Jan 02. The evidence of record indicates that a CDI was conducted into allegations...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01312 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131 COUNSEL: FRED L. BAUER HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 Apr 96 through 19 Apr 97 be declared void and removed from his records and his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...
On 25 Jul 96, the applicant received a LOR for use of excessive force while apprehending another Air Force member. Commanders may also remove an enlisted member's UIF prior to the disposition/expiration date, if they feel the UIF has served its purpose. With respect to the applicant's request that the LOR, dated 25 J u l 96, and the UIF established as a result of receiving the LOR be removed from his records, we note that the UIF is destroyed within one year after the effective date and...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01606
On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service characterized as general. On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, the Board recommends his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a majority of the Board recommends his RE...
On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service characterized as general. On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, the Board recommends his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a majority of the Board recommends his RE...
On 6 Jun 95, he was given a specific order by the Operations Officer to disconnect a specific telephone (designated for data transmission) and to not use that line for telephone calls. On 26 Jul 95, the applicant received notification from his commander that he was not being recommended for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 95E7. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01102
On 19 Jul 04, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him he was considering whether to punish him under Article 15 for alleged offenses on or about 15 Jun 04 of dereliction of duty by willfully failing to report correct numbers on the Status of Training report and for making a false official statement. While these documents provide information regarding his perceived treatment, they provide little information directly concerning the Article 15 action, other than his reply to the LOR,...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD01-00032
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD01-00032 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason for discharge and change the RE Code. ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a General Discharge for Misconduct — Minor Disciplinary Infractions. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD-01-00032 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former A1C) 1.