Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800297
Original file (9800297.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00297 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

'hhl  1 3  lm 
.  ____ 

---.  - 

APPLICANT REOU ESTS THA T: 
His discharge be overturned and he be reinstated in a retirement 
status. 

APPLICANT CON" ENDS THAT: ";4. 
He was falsely charged with disobeying an order and was made to 
pay  for  exposing  unfair  practices  on  the  part  of  that 

\ 

at Administration. 'b 

The applicant states that  in 1983  he  had  a single car accident 
off-base.  He was charged with not reporting the accident within 
the prescribed time.  He contends that he did report the incident 
within the prescribed time.  He was told that the new regulation 
was  written  on  the  back  side  of  the  temporary  vehicle 
registration.  When he proved that this wasn't so, he  was then 
told he had personally been informed by the Group Commander. 
The applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS : 
On 6 October 1980,  the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air 
Force. 
On 28 July 1983, the applicant was notified by his commander that 
action was  being  initiated to discharge him  from the Air  Force 
for misconduct without probation and rehabilitation and that his 
service  would  be  characterized  as  general  (under  honorable 
conditions) . 
An  Administrative  Discharge  Board  of  Officers  convened  on 
16 August 1983 to consider the evidence against the applicant and 
found the applicant had committed acts of misconduct as evidenced 
by the following:  (1) off-base DUI  (2) Art 15 for his failure to 
obey  an order;  (3) two  letters of  indebtedness;  ( 4 )   letter of 
reprimand  for  possession  and  discharging  an  air  rifle  in  the 
barracks  room;  (5) letter of  counseling for failure to  show on 

c 

time;  ( 6 )  letter of counseling for failure to go;  (7) letter of 
counseling for failure to go;  ( 8 )   a reprimand for disobeying a 
regulation.  The  board  recommended  the  applicant be  discharged 
for misconduct with a general discharge, but  that he be offered 
rehabilitation opportunities with a conditional suspension of his 
discharge. 
On  28  November  1983,  the applicant applied  for lengthy service 
consideration and submitted an application for retirement in lieu 
of discharge action to be effective 1 November 1984. 
On 30 January 1984, the Secretary of  the Air Force directed that 
the  approved  administrative  discharge  be  executed  and  denied 
lengthy service probation. 
On 22 February 1984, the applicant was discharged in the grade of 
staff  sergeant  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10  (Misconduct- 
Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline) with a 
general  (under honorable  conditions) discharge.  He  served  19 
years 04 months and 18 days total active service. 

A I R   FORCE E VALUA TION: 
The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and 
states there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice 
to  the  applicant.  The  discharge  complies  with  directives  in 
effect  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.  The  records  indicate 
member's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was 
taken.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S RE VIEW OF A I R   FORC E  EVAT iUAT I ON : 
A  complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant  on  18  March  1998  for  review  and  response within  30 
days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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  probable  error  or  i n j u s t i c e .  
We 

2 

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 and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  -.----  - 
been  shown that  a personal  appearance  with  or without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request f o r   a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

r 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice; that  the  application was  denied  without  a personal 
appearance; and  that  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 29 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S ,  Perlstein, Member 
Mr, Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

I 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3  Mar 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Mar 98. 

dl&/&(* 

VAUG  E. SCHL 

Panel Chair 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01855

    Original file (BC-2005-01855.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 August 1987, AFDRB denied the applicant’s request for upgrade 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file; the discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9802681

    Original file (9802681.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Failure to provide effective counsel during the administrative discharge board and board appeal process. DPPRS recommended the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D). Because applicant had a history of missed medical appointments, he received an Article 15 for his failure to go and his commander initiated an administrative discharge action.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202522

    Original file (0202522.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 February 1983, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force for a period of 4 years. Based on the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the requirements of the discharge regulation (See Exhibit C). While the applicant believes his service characterization is harsh, we believe a general discharge (under honorable conditions) was munificient given the information in his discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03532

    Original file (BC-2005-03532.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander was recommending the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge based on the following: (1) On 10 April 1984, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. Exhibit E. FBI Investigative Report.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00404

    Original file (BC-2005-00404.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant acknowledged he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge but, based on his almost 19 years of service, requested he be considered for a general discharge. On 11 August 1989, the Major Air Command Director of General Law found the file legally sufficient and recommended lengthy service probation be denied. On 16 October 1989, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions in the grade of technical sergeant by reason of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03503

    Original file (BC-2005-03503.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 June 1984, applicant's commander recommended discharge for drug abuse. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03705

    Original file (BC-2002-03705.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken against him were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other than his own misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2002-03705 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01400

    Original file (BC-2004-01400.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. The applicant received numerous counselings and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) documenting his disrespectful attitude and substandard military bearing. Based on the information and evidence provided, they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). On 29 June 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide information regarding his post-service activities.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00299

    Original file (BC-2006-00299.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board recommended he be discharged because of unsatisfactory duty performance with a general discharge without rehabilitation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting upgrading the applicant’s discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03400

    Original file (BC-2002-03400.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPRS notes the DRB denial of the applicant’s appeal on 13 March 1986. Applicant's complete statement with attachments is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In this respect, we note that his record of performance prior to the incident which led to his discharge, was excellent.