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
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01855
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...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.