Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800342
Original file (9800342.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  t S m b  

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NO:  98-00342 
COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

5 

Applicant  requests  his  under  other  than  honorable  conditions 
(UOTHC)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable. 
Applicant's 
submission is at Exhibit A .  
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and 
provided  an  advisory  opinion  to  the  Board  recommending  the 
application  be  denied  (Exhibit  C).  The  advisory  opinion  was 
forwarded to  the applicant  for review and  response  (Exhibit D). 
The applicant's response is at Exhibit E. 
After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available  evidence  of  record, we  find  insufficient  evidence  of 
error or injustice to warrant  corrective action.  The  facts and 
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the 
evidence  of  record  and  have  not  been  adequately  rebutted  by 
applicant.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights 
to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not  followedi- or 
appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will  only be  reconsidered upon  the presentation  of new  relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 
Members of  the Board Ms.  Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Mr.  Loren S. 
Perlstein and Mr.  Dana J. Gilmour considered this application on 
14 J u l y   1998  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Air  Force 
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552. 

Panel C h a w  

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D. 
E.  Applicant's Response 

AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL.CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRS 

550 C Street West Ste 11 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4713 

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged fiom the Air Force 27 
Sep 73 under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (Unfitness) and received an under other than 
honorable conditions discharge. He served  03 years 06 months and 16 days total active service, 

Reauested Action.  The applicant is requesting that his under other than honorable conditions 

discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

Basis for Request. Applicant feels that it was unjust for him to receive the type discharge that 

he received. 

Facts.  The discharge case file is not on file in applicant’s master personnel record.  However, 
on file in his permanent records are documents whereby he received Art  15 punishment on 27 Jul 
72 for failure to go to his appointed place 
taken on 12 Apr 73 for failure to go to his 
Art  15 
duty at 
to go to his appointed place of duty at 
time and was in civil confinement at 
his DD Form 214, 

to the applicant on 08 May 73 for failure to go to his appointed place of 
Finally, a fourth Art 15 was administered to him on 05 Jun 73 for faiiure 

.  Applicant bad a total of 37 days lost 

and was unavailable for signature on 

Discussion. This case has been reviewed and the discharge was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion of 
the discharge authority based on the number of recorded infractions the applicant had 
accumulated. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate 
action was taken. 

9800342 

Recommendation. Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identifjl any errors in the 
discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade ofthe discharge he received. 
Accordingly, we recommend applicant’s request be denied  He has not ‘filed a timely request. 

JOHN C. WOOTEN, GS-9 
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec 
Separations Branch 
Dir of Personnel Program Management 

9800342 
. - -. __  . - . . - 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02072

    Original file (BC-2006-02072.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Oct 73, an evaluation officer interviewed the applicant and recommended he be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for unsuitability based upon a defective attitude. ____________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800334

    Original file (9800334.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Applicant claims to have continued his Air Force career with the expectation he would be credited with these four years at the Academy upon his retirement from the Air Force. A corrected SOS was prepared at a dated as 18 Jan a instead of 18 Jan 74. later date...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802710

    Original file (9802710.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Consistent with his findings, the evaluation officer recommended discharge with a general discharge certificate. The records indicate member's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01738

    Original file (BC 2014 01738 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01738 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to at least a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The military judge sentenced the applicant to a BCD, which the applicant requested. We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his court- martial...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01546

    Original file (BC-2013-01546.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 May 86, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, but denied the request because the facts of record in his case did not warrant changing the type of discharge. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703033

    Original file (9703033.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. Applicant's Response DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCIOPPTR 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph A f 6 TX 78150-471 3 SUBJECT;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802198

    Original file (9802198.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant did not identif) any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received. Accordingly, we recommend applicant's request be denied.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00151

    Original file (FD2006-00151.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    * Reason and A u t h o r i t y + R e e n l i s t m e n t Code I C-..-.-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.-..,,-..-,.,..-..-....-..-..-..-..-..-.......-..-..-..-..-..-....-..-..-..-..-..-..-..t - TO: SAFMRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742 V~~~~~~~~~~~ FROM: - DATE: 1218R006 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 10761-7001 I AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02192

    Original file (BC-2007-02192.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02192 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Jan 14, 2009 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general discharge). On 24 Jul 73, the applicant requested a board hearing. Exhibit C. FBI...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801845

    Original file (9801845.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.