RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02897
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
One verbal incident caused her to lose two stripes. She was
young and naïve, and did not know her legal rights. She has
been denied the use of her veteran status for home loans,
discounts, and investments. She did not dishonor her country
and never had any serious offenses during her enlistment.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
26 Jun 80.
On 29 Feb 84, the applicant was notified by her commander of his
intent to recommend a general discharge for a pattern of
misconduct pattern of conduct prejudicial to good order and
discipline under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative
Separation of Airmen. The basis for the action was as follows:
a. On or about 2 Feb 82, the applicant failed to go to her
appointed place of duty without authorization. For this offense
she was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2) (suspended until
1 Aug 82), forfeiture of $50 per month for two months, and 30
days extra duty.
b. On or about Jun 83, the applicant wrongfully used
marijuana. For this offense she was reduced to the grade of
airman first class (E-3) and forfeiture of $100.
c. On 3 Feb 84, the applicant used disrespectful language
toward a non-commissioned officer (NCO) and failed to obey a
lawful order issued by a NCO. For this offense she was reduced
to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of $150.
On 6 Mar 84, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action,
consulted with legal counsel and waived her right to submit
statements on her own behalf.
On 27 Mar 84, the action was found to be legally sufficient and,
on 30 Mar 84, the discharge authority concurred with the
commanders recommendation.
On 3 Apr 84, the applicant was furnished a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with three
years, nine months, and eight days of active service.
On 10 Apr 86, the applicant appeared before the Discharge Review
Board (DRB) with counsel. The Board denied the applicants
request to upgrade her discharge and concluded that the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the
discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was
provided full administrative due process.
On 1 Aug 14, 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 C).
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 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the
applicants post-service activities, there is no way for us to
determine if the applicants accomplishments since leaving the
service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct
for which she was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
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-2014-02897 in Executive Session on 22 Apr 15, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Aug 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03301
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03301 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Oct 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03754
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s last period of active duty in the Air Force began on 8 Feb 82. On 23 Mar 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit E).
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00632
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81, for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 29 Nov 83, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01166
On 22 Nov 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of staff sergeant. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. A complete copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02864
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02864 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. On 30 Mar 84, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 9 months, and 9 days of active service. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03153 INDEX CODE: 126 COUNSEL: JULIE K. HASDORFF HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An Article 15, dated 22 Aug 96, an Article 15, dated 6 Sep 96, and, a Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 4 Nov 96, be set aside. The defense counsel claims that the legal office recommended to the commander...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03250
On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that he was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed on 15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
He received an LOR on 7 Apr 82 for failing to report for duty on 3 April 82. On 17 May 83, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01602
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 214 and his application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03658
The applicant’s performance reports are provided at Exhibit B. Available records pertaining to the applicant’s medical issues are at Exhibit B, and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides medical details in his advisory at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s service records revealed no reference to participation in combat or events similar to those described by the...