RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01835
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While on active duty - she served her country honorably. She
states that she is a 40 percent disabled veteran.
In support of the applicants appeal, she provides a document
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 February
1989.
The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to
recommend her discharge from the Air Force under the provisions
of AFR 39-10. The specific reasons follow:
a. Between 20 September 1989 and 26 January 1990, the
applicant received numerous Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for
failing to report and being derelict in the performance of her
duties. Also on 29 December 1989, she received a memorandum for
record (MFR) for being derelict in the performance of her
duties.
b. Between 21 November 1989 and 14 February 1990, the
applicant received numerous notification letters regarding
delinquent accounts.
c. The applicant received non-judicial punishment under
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for
being derelict in the performance of her duties on or about
16 February 1990.
She was advised of her rights in this matter and after
consulting with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a
statement on her own behalf.
In a legal review of the case file, the deputy staff judge
advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended
discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the
recommendation and directed a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 16 May
1990. She served 1 year, 3 months, and 16 days on active duty.
On 16 December 2013, a request for information pertaining to her
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response 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 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, based on the evidence before us, we find no
basis to grant clemency at this time. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
_
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-01835 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 April 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 December 2013.
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02889
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02889 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. In order to separate a service member in lieu of court-martial, the request must be based on the fact that charges have been preferred. Based on her time in service, she would have had the right to an administrative separation board hearing.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00163
On 18 April 1986, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request that her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded. They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. There exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02115
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she was on active duty she was young and dumb and did not respect her position and assignments as she should have. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR dated 3 December 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02752
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02752 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation (Misconduct Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) be changed. She served 2 years, 5 months and 7 days on active duty. On 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03004
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. She is asking that her husband's bad conduct discharge be upgraded because he has led an exemplary life since his discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 October 2013.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01835
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. For ending on a non-duty day, the day of return shall not be charged as a day of leave. Air Force Guidance Memorandum 2, dated 8 April 2011, revised AFI 36-3003, Table 1, Rule 3, to reflect the following: If a member is starting leave or signing up for space-available travel on a non-duty day, then the member is on leave. In addition, it changed AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03886
In support of his request the applicant submits a personal statement and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. In view of the forgoing findings the Board further concluded there was no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus, the applicants discharge should not be changed. Exhibit C. FBI Report Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 29 March 2012.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01105 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman (E-21, which was the grade he held at the time of discharge. Applicant alleges that the discharge authority discharged him prematurely before completion of an investigation of three Inspector General (IG) complaints he filed and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00460
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00460 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 AUGUST 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded. On 5 September 1990, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02244
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending the discharge, he [the commander], the first sergeant, and the applicant’s supervisors had verbally counseled the applicant concerning exactly what the Air Force, her squadron, and everyone concerned, expected of her as an active duty member in the United States Air Force. On 12 August 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F). ...