RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03735
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She submitted a DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge
from the Armed Forces, for upgrade of her general discharge but
it was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on
19 Jun 14.
She requests reconsideration of her request as she would like to
use the GI Bill to attend college and better herself. Her
discharge was only for minor infractions and it does not reflect
the type of person she is.
In support of her request, she provides letters of support and
certificates of recognition.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 5 Jun 07, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 10 Sep 10 she was discharged with service characterized as
general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for
separation of Misconduct (minor infractions), and Reentry (RE)
code 2B which denotes Discharged under General or other than
honorable conditions.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on a review of the master
personnel records, the discharge, to include the Separation
Program Designator (SPD), 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. DPSOR did not
find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge
processing.
The applicant was notified by her commander on 18 Aug 10 he was
recommending her for discharge from the Air Force for
misconduct, specifically, minor disciplinary infractions based
on the following:
On or about 4 May 09, she failed to progress and meet
required deadlines in her Career Development Course (CDC). As a
result, she received a LOC.
On or about 1 May 09 and 2 May 09, with intent to deceive,
she made multiple official statements which were false and were
then known by her to be false for which she received an Article
15, UCMJ.
On or about 14 Oct 09, she failed to show at her assigned
place of duty for physical training at the assigned time for
which she received a LOC.
On or about 21 Oct 09, she failed to complete squadron
physical training requirements as she was instructed to do. As
a result, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).
On or about 25 Nov 09, she missed a mandatory medical
appointment for which she received a LOR.
On or about 22 Apr 10, she was derelict in the performance
of her duties in that she failed to complete the end-of-day
checklist for which she received a LOR.
On or about 27 Apr 10, she was derelict in the performance
of her duties in that she failed to complete her end of day
duties as assigned for which she received a Letter of Reprimand
(LOR).
On or about 26 Jun 10, she failed to obey a lawful general
regulation by wrongfully operating a government owned off-road
vehicle for unofficial purposes for which she received an
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal
counsel and submit statements in her own behalf.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support the separation and the discharge authority
approved the recommendation of discharge.
The record shows that the applicant was afforded several
opportunities to overcome deficiencies in her conduct but with
no success. The commander concluded the unit had exhausted all
options to rehabilitate the applicant; however, she repeatedly
failed to conform to Air Force standards of conduct. Based on
this, discharge was the next option.
A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
application on 23 Dec 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a
response.
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 applicants 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
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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-03735 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-03735 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 23 Oct 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02298
On or about 18 Oct 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from sleeping during a meeting, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 30 Nov 11. c. On or about 30 Aug 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully returned late from lunch and refused to perform tasks assigned to him, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03909
DODI 1332.32, Physical Disability or Medical Disqualification, paragraph E3.P3.2.1, in effect at the time of the applicants service reads: A service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes the member, due to physical disability is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating. The Medical Consultant concedes a more thorough evaluation of his right knee should have been documented at the time of separation than appears on his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00912
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00912 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B, “Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge,” be changed. For these actions, she received an LOR, which was placed in her existing UIF. ...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00284
| 3_| LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE L COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 19 Aug 2003 FD-2003-00284 [ PERSONAL APPEARANCE Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR RANCE = oT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05170
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05170 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable, so she may reenter the Air Force or another branch of the Armed Forces. On 24 Jan 07, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05570
On 7 April 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge to Honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in the processing of the discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02996
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02996 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of GHK (substandard performance) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to GHF (Other). The applicant disagreed with the proposed action, and requested a Board of Inquiry (BOI) review her case. On 17 Sep 13, the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02335
On 6 Apr 12, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the applicants requests to upgrade his discharge, change his narrative reason for separation and RE code. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial as it pertains to the applicants request to change the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service. Therefore, as the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate that the commander abused his discretionary...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02996
On 30 May 2003, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of Misconduct. He served on active duty for 7 months and 16 days. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01988
Any duty that requires him to report his arrest for DUI violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. On 10 Oct 12, the applicants commander issued him an LOR for failing to report his arrest to his security officer as required by DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, paragraph C9.1.4. On 11 Mar 13, in response to a request from the applicant, his referral EPR was amended to remove reference to the DUI, however, the EPR remained an overall 3 based upon the applicants failure to...