RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00226
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded
to honorable and her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code changed
to allow her to reapply to join the Air Force as an officer.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was administratively discharged without being referred to a
mental health provider for the issues she was going through with
her family. She was told she could reenlist at a later date.
Now that she has matured and earned a college degree, she would
like to continue serving in the Air Force.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 Sep 2000, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air
Force.
On 12 Nov 02, the applicants commander notified her that he was
recommending her discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct--minor
disciplinary infractions. The reasons for the action were: the
applicant failed to refrain from using a government telephone
for personal long distance calls and failed to refrain from
allowing another individual to use her military identification
card to obtain services from a government dining facility. For
both actions, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment.
Further, she failed to obey a lawful order by leaving work early
and made a false official statement about the incident. She
also failed to report to duty at her designated location and
time. For these actions, she received two letters of reprimand
and a record of individual counseling.
On 15 Nov 02, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification. She consulted with counsel and
submitted statements to her commander for consideration.
On 13 Nov 02, the discharge action was found legally sufficient.
On 25 Nov 02, the applicant was furnished a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct and was credited
with 2 years, 2 months, and 20 days of active service.
On 12 Jul 07, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) to have her discharge upgraded; however,
the AFDRB denied her appeal. The board found that neither the
evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant
substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a
change of discharge.
In response to a request for post-service information, the
applicant provided a copy of an FBI arrest record (Exhibit G).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C
and D.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. The applicant was provided the
opportunity to correct her conduct and behavior without success.
Her commander determined the negative aspects of her performance
outweighed the positive aspects of her service. Based on the
documentation provided, the discharge, to include the Separation
Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation
and character of service, was appropriately administered. The
applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or
injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial with respect to the applicants RE
code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.
The applicants RE code of 2B was required due to the fact that
her service was characterized as general (under honorable
conditions). Even if the applicant's discharge is ever upgraded
from general to honorable, 2C would be the required RE code,
which is not an immediately eligible to enlist RE code, but
would require a waiver to enter the military service.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days
Exhibit E). 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, to
include the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, was consistent
with the substantive requirements of the discharge instruction
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 find the evidence presented insufficient
to recommend relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
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-2014-00226 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 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 Dec 13.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 Feb 14.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 Feb 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, undated.
Exhibit G. FBI arrest record, dated 18 Ju1 14
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00644
On 7 May 2008, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request to upgrade her discharge to honorable. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. 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 she was...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01938
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01938 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following be changed on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKN; Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B; and General under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to Honorable. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05662
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05662 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her service characterization, as reflected in Block 24 of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from not applicable to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Reentry (RE) Code 2C gives her an honorable status, so it should be reflected in Block 24. The remaining...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02927
On 1 Apr 11, the applicants commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct: Commission of a Serious Offense, Other Serious Offenses for the offenses resulting from her Summary court-martial conviction. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFLOA/JAJM recommends approval of the applicants request for her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to be upgraded to honorable, given her apparent disparate treatment....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00510
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00510 IN THE MATTER OF: COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable based on the repeal of Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 654, more commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03860
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03860 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 17 Apr 09, the applicant was notified of her commanders intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen for Fradulent Enlistment. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03259
On 20 May 2013, after her separation she saw an allergist and included his letter noting there was no reaction when she ingested shrimp. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to change her narrative reason for separation. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00907
On 26 Nov 97, the applicant was furnished a honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of Completion of Required Active Service, along with a separation program designator (SPD) code of KBK (Completion of Active Service) and RE code of 4J. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04545
On 3 Aug 09, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the applicants master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01824
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01824 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. Although each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the award of an honorable or general discharge should normally be considered to indicate the absence of aggravating factors. The discharge was properly processed according...