AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02020
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
- - -
Applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions
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).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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 rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, 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.
r.
Members of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Ms. Ann L. Heidig,
and Ms. Sophie A. Clark considered this application on 10 Dec 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.CP552.
Exhibits :
A . Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C . Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E T E X A S
AUG 2 7 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
The applicant, while serving in the grade of senior airman, was discharged fiom the Air Force
28 Jun 83 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Msconduct Sexual Deviatioaoard Waiver) with
an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He served 09 years 04 months and 23 days
active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting his under other than honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to honorable.
Basis for Recpest. Applicant claims his discharge was based on erroneous information and
quick action by the Commander due to sensitivity of his job and publicity about his unit at Tinker
AFB OK. He states he was not charged by civilian authorities however, after his commander and
OS1 was notified and a newspaper article published giving his name, along with mention of his
unit, it did not set well with the Air Force and it was strongly suggested to him that he leave the
Air Force under other than honorable conditions. He indicates he was rather upset but did not
argue the matter. Additionally, he claims the Veterans Administration accepted him for full
benefits under the GI Bill after they investigated and was provided information concerning his
case by his former commander.
Facts. Applicant’s master personnel record does not contain the discharge case file however,
his DD Form 2 14 indicates his discharge was for misconduct- sexual deviation. In addition, his
record indicates he was administered Art 15 punishment on 01 Oct 82 because he communicated
to three children under the age of 16 years, certain indecent language, to wit “Conversation you
had with the three boys in regard to posing nude for money.” Finally, his record contains an AF
Form 2098 (Duty Status Change) dated 20 Jun 83 prepared to report applicant’s period of
absence fiom military control for the period 04 Jan 83 to 12 Jan 83 with remarks “Member
waived all rights to remain silent and pleaded guilty to charges brought by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of NeWYork, Case No. 83-CR-50, of knowlingly used U.S. mails for
delivery and receipt of certain nonmailable matter including photographic film, prints, negatives,
consisting of and containing obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy, and vile pictures of
persons under 16 years of age in violation of Title 18, USC, Sec 13 and Sec 1040.13 of the
Oklahoma statutes . ”
- r e
i
Recommendation. Applicant did not identi@ any specific errors in the discharge processing nor
provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received over 15 years ago and has
indicated in his application that he was upset to the recommendation that he leave the Air Force
under other than honorable condition but, did not argue the matter. Therefore, we recommend
applicant’s request be denied. He has not filed a timely request.
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02729
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02729 INDEX CODE 111.02 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Airman Performance Report (APR) closing 30 Mar 83 be voided from his records and replaced with the “original one that had straight 9s,” his 1983 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions E. Applicant’s Response D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E A I R F O R C E H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS AUG 3 11998 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the ‘“application be denied (Exhibit C) . Requested Action. The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 9 - 0 0 2 2 8 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertine Force relating t to show that twe leave account commencing 2...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. Applicant did not identifjl any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the...
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00072
Yo knowledge of a lawful order issued by CMSgt to wit: ereby ordered to have no contact with SrA other than professional contact during normal duty hours or words to that effect, dated 16 Feb 99, an order which it was your duty to obey, did, at or near Las Vegas, Nevada, on or about 1 Mar 99, fail to obey the same by wrongfully going to off duty residence. For your actions, you were punished under Article 15, UCMJ, on 15 Jun 99 and received one day lost time due to being in civilian...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Further, the issues raised in this application were all raised in some form during the processing of the original actions, and were discussed in the legal reviews at that time. Due to the fact the applicant had more than 20 years active service, the action to DFR was processed as a “dual action” case so that consideration of...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00344
The records indicated the applicant had a General Court Martial Trial for misconduct in which he was found guilty on six Specifications. Specifications 1-4, he was found guilty of orally communicating to females certain indecent language; and Specifications 5 and 6, he was found guilty of wrongfully communicating a threat. (Change Discharge to General and the Change the Reason and Authority for Discharge) Issue 1: Character of discharge is inequitable because at "show cause" notification I...
Two of the women (Ms C--- and Ms H---) provided sworn statements. The BOO found that the applicant had committed the above-referenced acts of sexual perversion and recommended he be discharged for misconduct with a UOTHC discharge without P&R. The attached police reports show that Ms L--- committed perjury when she testified she was going to work.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00141A
The supervisors at hand did not offer positive mentoring, but told me the Air Force comes first, and that is the Air Force. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for Misconduct, Minor Disciplinary Infractions. For violating 24-hours quarters authorization, you received a LOR on 31 Mar 99, which was placed in your existing UIF on 13 Apr 99 (Atch 4, Tab 1).