Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03297
Original file (BC 2014 03297.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03297

				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her discharge, she was young and trying to find 
her way in the world; while learning to be away from home and 
also trying to figure out how to be in the Air Force.  It was 
only with the passage of time has she learned from her mistakes.

Since her discharge she has grown up, matured, and become a 
responsible mature adult and a productive member of society.  
She has graduated from college with her Associate’s degree in 
Healthcare Administration and currently enrolled in a Bachelor’s 
program for Healthcare Management.  By getting her discharge 
upgraded, she feels it would enable her to continue to move 
forward in her career which will benefit herself and her family.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 31 May 
95.

On 2 Apr 97, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
dereliction of duties, a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice.

On 3 Apr 97, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
not paying just debts, a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice.

On 9 Apr 97, the commander established an Unfavorable 
Information File on the applicant and placed her on a Control 
Roster.

On 22 Apr 97, the applicant was convicted in a civilian court of 
issuing a check or draft without sufficient funds.  She was 
sentenced to 30 days in the County Jail (suspended), ordered to 
pay a criminal bond forfeit of $100.00 and ordered to make 
restitution in the amount of $57.88.

On 24 Apr 97, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
making a false official statement a violation of Article 91 of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

On 13 May 97, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
disobeying a direct order and making a false official statement 
a violation of Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice.

On 23 Jul 97, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for unlawfully striking two airmen with her hand, a 
violation of Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice.  She was reduced in grade to airman, ordered to forfeit 
$500 a month for 2 months (suspended), restricted to the 
installation for 30 days, and given 14 days of extra duty.

On 1 Aug 97, the applicant was convicted in a civilian court of 
issuing check or draft without sufficient funds.  She was 
sentenced to 30 days in the County Jail (suspended), ordered to 
pay a criminal bond forfeit of $100.00 and ordered to make 
restitution in the amount of $27.00.

On 4 Aug 97, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
being found guilty in a civilian court of issuing a check or 
draft without sufficient funds.   

On 11 Aug 97, the applicant was notified by her commander that 
he was recommending her for discharge for a pattern of 
misconduct; specifically, conduct prejudicial to good order and 
discipline in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5.50.2.  
The commander recommended her service be characterized as 
General.

On 13 Aug 97, the applicant confirmed she received assistance 
and advice from legal counsel and provided a statement on her 
behalf.

On 14 Aug 97, the applicant requested she be allowed to remain 
in the Air Force and complete the remaining 18 months of her 
enlistment.

On 4 Sep 97, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the discharge 
package and found it legally sufficient.  

On 8 Sep 97, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
involuntary discharge with a service characterization of 
General.  Probation and rehabilitation was not offered.

On 1 Oct 97, the applicant was furnished a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 
4 months, and 2 days of active service.   

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the 
applicant on 23 Sep 14 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 
applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to 
determine if the applicant’s 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-2014-03297 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-2014-03297 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Clemency Information Bulletin.

						





Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003297

    Original file (0003297.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 Apr 95, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report for duty. On 29 May 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request that her discharge be upgraded to honorable (see Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901029

    Original file (9901029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 6 Oct 95 3 * 6 Oct 96 3 * Contested report On 11 Aug 97, Applicant was notified that her commander was recommending she be discharged with service characterized as general for minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of the administrative discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also ineligible for promotion. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100189

    Original file (0100189.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 March 1999, she was honorably released from her active duty assignment and transferred to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR), in the grade of technical sergeant, with an RE code of 4H and a SPD code of LBK, and given half pay separation. They recommend the Board deny the applicant’s request to have the action removed from her records. The applicant did receive an Article 15 and her re-enlistment code reflects such.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900665

    Original file (9900665.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00315

    Original file (FD2003-00315.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance withlwithout counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR / TO: I SAFIMRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 INDORSEMENT FROM: DATE: 09/30/2003 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used I I I AIR FORCE DISCHARGE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629

    Original file (BC-2004-02629.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03297

    Original file (BC 2013 03297.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Feb 05, the discharge authority recommended denial of the retirement request and recommended execution of the approved discharge, and, on 28 Mar 05, the Major Command Director of Personnel office concurred with the discharge authority’s recommendation. On 13 May 05, in accordance with AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the applicant’s request for retirement in lieu of discharge, and recommended his application to retire...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0098

    Original file (FD2002-0098.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    For these acts of misconduct, the respondent received a verbal counseling, a letter of counseling (LOC), a memorandum for record (MFR), four letters of reprimand (LOR), an unfavorable information file (UIF), entry on the control roster, and punishment under Article 15, UCM. (Tab 1) 4, EVIDENCE CONSIDERED FOR THE RESPONDENT: The respondent is a 22 year old security forces journéyman who enlisted in the Air Force on 7 May 97. f. On or about 10 Aug 98, you failed to go at the time to your...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00025

    Original file (FD2003-00025.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant’s discharge should not be changed. As a result, you received a LOR, dated 8 Jun 99. Letter of Counseling, dated 23 Dec 98 | 3.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01338

    Original file (BC-2011-01338.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01338 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and her rank be restored. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary...