RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03190
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded
to Honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was an excellent Airman and all Enlisted Performance Reports
and Feedback Worksheets reflect that fact. He admits that he
made a mistake and learned from the experience.
In support of his request, the applicant provided copies of two
AF Form 910s, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt) which
closed out 24 Jun 95 and 24 Jun 96 and copies of AF Form 931, AB
Thru TSgt Feedback Worksheets, dated 21 Jan 97, 22 Apr 97 and 25
Aug 97.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 4 Oct
93.
On 22 Jun 97, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial
Punishment, for writing a bad check in violation of Article
123a, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was reduced in grade
to airman first class.
On 14 Apr 98, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial
Punishment, for dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient
funds in his checking account on three separate occasions in
violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He
was reduced in grade to airman basic.
On 27 Apr 98, the applicant was notified by his commander of his
intent to recommend him for discharge based on unsatisfactory
performance involving irresponsibility in the management of
personal finances. The authority for this action is AFI 36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph
5.26.4. The commander recommended the applicants service be
characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions).
On 30 Apr 98, the applicant consulted legal counsel and waived
his right to submit statements on his behalf.
On 23 Jun 98, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the
administrative discharge package and found it legally sufficient
and recommended approval. The discharge authority approved the
administrative discharge with a service characterization of
General (Under Honorable Conditions). Probation and
rehabilitation was not granted.
On 6 Jul 98, the applicant was furnished a General (Under
Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 4 years,
8 months, and 29 days of active service.
A request for post-service information was forwarded to the
applicant on 20 Mar 15 for review and comment within 30 days.
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 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 he 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-2014-03190 in Executive Session on 25 Jun 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-03190 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Clemency Information Bulletin.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00762
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00762 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period from 8 February 2008 through 1 October 2008 be changed to reflect the correct inclusive dates, remove duplicate bullet statements, and reflect the correct dates of supervision. She...
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05823
On 21 Jul 14, the applicant was advised that the AFBCMR is the highest administrative level of appeal in the Air Force and that he should exhaust all other available avenues of relief prior to seeking relief through the AFBCMR. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01081
DPPPEP states the applicant filed two appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Reports. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05. CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01081 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military...
In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01693
For airmen who meet eligibility requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form 224, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force. According to the 7 Apr 04 report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A was the additional rater. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He should have received an initial and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00432
In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, dated 31 Jan 03; a copy of her statement to the ERAB, dated 14 Jan 02; a copy of an MFR from her former element chief, dated 3 Aug 01; a copy of her EPR closing 16 Oct 01 and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt), dated 5 Jul 01. Air Force policy states it is the rating chain’s responsibility to “assess and document what the ratee did, how well he or she did it, and the ratee’s potential based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00827
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his EPRs for periods ending 4 Apr 08 and 13 Jan 09, his appeal to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) and, a memorandum from his rater dated 6 May 08. Moreover, while Air Force policy requires formal feedback be documented, a direct correlation between information provided during the feedback session and the assessments on an evaluation report does not necessarily exist. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the contested report would normally have been eligible for promotion consideration for the 96E7 cycle to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97). Consequently, he was ineligible for promotion consideration for the 96B7 cycle based on both the referral EPR and the PES Code “Q”. Even if the board directs removal of the referral report, the applicant would not...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...