RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01215
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late husbands records be corrected to show that his general
(under honorable conditions) discharge was upgraded to
honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her late husband was told he could change his general (under
honorable conditions) discharge after six months. She is unable
to draw any of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefit
unless it reflects honorable.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A discharge package was not available in the applicants
military personnel records (MPR). The facts surrounding his
separation cannot be verified. The available records reveal
that on 11 Jan 96, the former member entered the Regular Air
Force.
On 20 Jan 99, he received a referral Enlisted Performance Report
(EPR) with an overall rating of 2, Not Recommended at This
Time from both his rater and endorser for the time period
11 Sep 98 to 7 Jan 99. The EPR reflects that he was counseled
repeatedly for failing to perform simple tasks and meeting
minimum appearance standards. The EPR highlighted that the
applicant was reprimanded for failing in the Weight Management
Program (WMP) three times.
On 26 Jan 99, his squadron commander recommended he be denied
the Air Force Good Conduct Medal due to his placement on the
control roster.
On 27 Oct 99, he received a referral EPR with an overall rating
of 1, Not Recommended from both his rater and endorser for the
time period 8 Jan 19 to 13 Oct 99. The EPR notes his
lackadaisical attitude, his inability to clearly express
thoughts or ideas verbally or in writing and his lack of
initiative. The EPR noted his placement on the control roster
for failure to maintain sanitary conditions in government
quarters as well as his failure to maintain personal hygiene.
The applicants struggles in the WMP as well as his lack of
motivation to do more were also noted.
According to an AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment
Proceedings, dated 1 Nov 99, the applicant failed to obey a
lawful order in violation of Article 92 of the Uniformed Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ). He was reduced to the grade of airman,
with a new date of rank of 5 Nov 99.
On 6 Dec 99, the applicant received a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge with a narrative reason of Misconduct. He
was credited with 3 years, 10 months, and 26 days of active
service excluding 4 months and 3 days for time lost.
According to the death certificate provided by the applicant the
former member died 2 Mar 13.
On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). In response to this request, the applicant provides
numerous character letters (Exhibit D).
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicants spouse 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. Based upon
the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental
affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume
that the applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance with
appropriate directives. Considered alone, we conclude the
discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the
discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the
events which precipitated the discharge. In this respect, it
may base its decision on matters of equity and clemency rather
than simply on whether rules and regulations which existed at
the time were followed. Under this broader mandate, and after
careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of
applicant's case, we are persuaded corrective action is
warranted based on clemency. The applicant has provided
numerous character references and it appears the former member
made a successful transition to civilian life prior to his
death. In view of the passage of time and his post-service
adjustment, we believe upgrading his discharge to honorable and
changing his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial
Authority, with the corresponding Separation Program Designator
Code of JFF is appropriate. Accordingly, we recommend the
applicants records be corrected as indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the
time of his 6 December 1999 discharge, the narrative reason for
his separation was Secretarial Authority with a separation code
of JFF and was furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-01215 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Clemency Bulletin, dated 28 Apr 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jun 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01818
DPF states her case file shows no evidence the applicant was directed to weigh-in regardless of her menstrual cycle prior to 10 February 2003; therefore, they recommend denial of her request to upgrade her EPR closing 25 January 2003. Accordingly, it is recommended the record should be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit H. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Nov 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02221
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with the close-out date of 19 August 2009 be voided and removed from his records. He believes that his EPR was used to cancel his assignment and therefore, it should be voided and removed from his records. With regard to assignment been may have 5 the applicant’s placement onto the Control Roster, as a result of the commander directed inquiry which revealed the applicant’s unprofessional relationship, the commander issued an LOR with control roster action.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02585
She contends other personnel were involved but only she received a letter of reprimand (LOR) and was placed on the commander’s control roster. She responded with a letter to her squadron commander and eight character references - some of which provided insight on how she had been treated by her immediate supervisor. Letter of appeal to her commander.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00224 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 16 Nov 98, be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be restored. A complete copy...
The applicant contends the rater on the report was not actually his rater when the report closed out. In addition, neither the rater nor the applicant provided evidence as to why the rater signed both the report and the referral letter. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation with another statement from his rater at the time of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04036
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request. DPPPE further states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Upon review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states the EPR appeal board stated the gortex jacket and boots...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Commander’s Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this application and states that when an enlisted member retires, as the applicant has done, the UIF and its contents are destroyed. He was only required to report, even the slightest possibility, that an Air Force member was being racially discriminated against. Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02755
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he did file an IG complaint, which he included with his application. However, based on the applicant’s previous and subsequent performance reports,the performance feedback he received prior to the contested report, and the letter from the rater of the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00350
According to the 99 ABW Commanders letter dated 4 Dec 13, she was issued a written no-contact order on 8 Feb 13 by the First Sergeant to stay away from another member of the 99 LRS per a request from Security Forces investigators because the applicant was discussing the open investigation with the said person. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 Jul 14, copies of...