RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05570
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to
an Honorable Discharge.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He struggled with depression after his grandmother passed away and
prior to his weight and financial problems. He was a top
performing airman and was selected for early promotion.
The failure to untimely file should be waived in the interest of
justice since he would like to have his discharge upgraded to
continue utilizing the GI Bill under the Post-9/11 rules.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May
1997.
On 2 January 2002, the applicant was notified of his commanders
intent to recommend his administrative discharge for minor
disciplinary infractions and exceeding body fat standards, weight
management program. The specific reasons for the action are
contained later in these proceedings in the summary of the
evaluation prepared by the Air Force office of primary
responsibility (OPR).
On 3 January 2002, after consulting with legal counsel, the
applicant waived his right to submit statements or rebuttal.
On 17 January 2002, the applicant was furnished a general
discharge, and was credited with 4 years, 7 months, and 27 days of
active service.
On 7 April 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his
discharge to Honorable. The AFDRB concluded the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge
authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due
process.
On 15 October 2014, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.
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. The
applicants service record shows that from 21 November 2000 to
19 January 2001 he received three Letters of Reprimand (LOR) for
failing to clear his base housing unit, failing to report to his
place of duty at appointed time, and failing to pay Military Star
credit card debt. For the period beginning 12 April 2001 through
29 October 2001, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for
failing to pay Military Star credit card and another LOR on
1 October 2001, for failing to make payments on his credit card.
The applicant received an Article 15 on 20 December 2001, for
failing to notify his First Sergeant that he received a traffic
ticket on a military installation and again for failing to pay a
debt to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. Throughout this
same time period, on or about 12 July 2001 to 19 November 2001,
the applicant received one LOC and two LORs for failing to make
satisfactory progress while in the Weight Management Program.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 29 August 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
D). 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 applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of
an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested
relief
4. The applicants 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 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-2013-05570 in Executive Session on 21 November 2014 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 Jan 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Oct 14, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03735
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She submitted a DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces, for upgrade of her general discharge but it was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 19 Jun 14. On 10 Sep 10 she was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of Misconduct (minor infractions), and Reentry (RE) code 2B which denotes Discharged under General or other than honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01860
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01860 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04111
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04111 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The “JCR” (Weight Control Failure) separation program designator (SPD) code he received be fixed or upgraded so he is not required to pay back the bonus he received when he enlisted in the Air Force. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01549
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01549 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenter military service. On 17 November 1997, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01988
Any duty that requires him to report his arrest for DUI violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. On 10 Oct 12, the applicants commander issued him an LOR for failing to report his arrest to his security officer as required by DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, paragraph C9.1.4. On 11 Mar 13, in response to a request from the applicant, his referral EPR was amended to remove reference to the DUI, however, the EPR remained an overall 3 based upon the applicants failure to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01850 INDEX CODE: 110.00 480-13-0897 HEARING DESIRED: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he can enlist in the Air Force Reserve. On 26 Oct 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded applicant’s discharge to honorable (see Exhibit C). In this regard, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02298
On or about 18 Oct 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from sleeping during a meeting, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 30 Nov 11. c. On or about 30 Aug 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully returned late from lunch and refused to perform tasks assigned to him, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02996
On 30 May 2003, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of Misconduct. He served on active duty for 7 months and 16 days. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02932
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02932 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his application to the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03914
d. On 23 Jun 87, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 6 different occasions. On 3 Dec 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for separation, indicating the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations and was within the sound...