Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02302
Original file (BC 2014 02302.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02302

  					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed from uncharacterized to Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 28 Apr 98, while in medical hold status awaiting an entry 
level separation for having a seizure, he got angry and made a 
racial comment directed towards a fellow airman.  Due to his 
medical condition, he was told not to follow normal formation 
procedures however; a fellow airman was not aware and started 
badgering him.  Though he tried to explain what happened, he was 
told a witness provided the whole story.

He knew something had changed with his discharge after receiving 
the paperwork but did not really understand the coding and 
verbiage.  He contacted his parents who contacted their 
Congressman and he was released to go home.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 Mar 98, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 6 Apr 98, he was admitted to Wilford Hall Medical Center 
(WHMC) after having a seizure.

On 7 Apr 98, he was placed on medical hold by WHMC and 
transferred pending further medical evaluation.

On 28 Apr 98, his section supervisor annotated on his training 
record that he would have disciplinary action taken against him 
for an incident involving a fellow airman.  He acknowledged that 
same day.

On 29 Apr 98, his section supervisor annotated the investigation 
had revealed the applicant made a racial comment towards another 
airman and that Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ) action would be administered.  He acknowledged the same 
day.

On 7 May 98, he received an Article 15, UCMJ based for being 
derelict in the performance of his duties by willfully calling a 
fellow airman basic a “nigger,” or words to that effect, on or 
about 28 Apr 98.  The applicant acknowledged receipt initialing 
he was waiving his right to court-martial and not submitting any 
written statement.  He was sentenced to $199.00 pay and his 
commander annotated the information would be filed in an 
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  

On 8 May 98, the Judge Advocate found the record of NJP legally 
sufficient.

On 13 May 98, the applicant received notification his squadron 
commander was recommending his discharge due to commission of a 
serious offense under provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military 
Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section H, Misconduct, 
Paragraph 5.52, for Commission of a serious offense, 
specifically under Paragraph 5.52.3.  He acknowledged receipt 
the same day waiving his option to consult counsel and his right 
to submit statements.

On 14 May 98, the separation authority approved the applicant’s 
administrative discharge as an entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service characterization.    

On 15 May 98, the applicant received an entry-level separation 
with uncharacterized character of service and narrative reason 
for separation as misconduct.  He was credited with 2 months and 
5 days of active service.     


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there was no evidence of 
an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  Based on a 
review of the master personnel records, the discharge to include 
the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of 
service was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  It was determined by his 
commander that the offense committed by the applicant was of a 
serious nature and that it demonstrated a total lack of Air 
Force core values.  

Based on this assessment, discharge was warranted.  According to 
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.19.1, “Airmen are in entry level 
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous 
active military service.”  The Department of Defense (DoD) 
determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous 
active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service 
to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, the 
uncharacterized character of service on the applicant’s DD Form 
214 is correct as indicated and in accordance with DoD and Air 
Force Instructions.     

The complete 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 10 Oct 14 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 applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its 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.


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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02302 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Aug 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 14.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00221

    Original file (BC 2013 00221.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Mar 98, the applicant was again seen by BAS for an angry attitude towards BMT and feelings of wanting to “go off” on his military training instructor (MTI). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00221

    Original file (BC-2013-00221.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Mar 98, the applicant was again seen by BAS for an angry attitude towards BMT and feelings of wanting to “go off” on his military training instructor (MTI). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03296

    Original file (BC-2012-03296.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Air Force personnel “confirmed” that he would receive a medical discharge within six months and rejoin the Air Force. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the applicant be corrected to show that he was discharged on 27 February...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03513

    Original file (BC 2014 03513.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The record shows that the applicant was counseled several times concerning his course work and study habit. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01392

    Original file (BC 2014 01392.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. Airmen separated under this provision are not updated to a RE code of 2C.” In addition, DPSOY will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE code of 3A, unless otherwise directed by the Board. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04733

    Original file (BC 2013 04733.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 Jun 09, the applicant declined a waiver to stay in the Air Force and was processed for entry level separation with an uncharacterized character of service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03113

    Original file (BC 2014 03113.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 May 2014, the discharge authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged. DPSOR did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge process. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0132

    Original file (FD2002-0132.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0132 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for drinking under age and for failure to remain in his room on telephone standby. Separate Airman BasidiiiQiiiiiiiee under AFI 36-3208, par \ graph 5.49, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, without P & R. i Attachment: Case File FD2002 -2s2- DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05831

    Original file (BC 2013 05831.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05831 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Discharge Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service” be changed to “Erroneous Enlistment.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has not taken the disqualifying...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04045

    Original file (BC 2013 04045.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04045 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 11 July 2011, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice to warrant changing his narrative reason for...