AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET "IBER: 98-02198
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests his general discharge be upgrade 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.
Members of the Board Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Mr. Gregory W.
DenHerder, and Mr. James R. Lonon considered this application on
4 February 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
h
D E P A R T M E N T OF THE 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
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Rec ds
9E%,
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force 06 May
8 1 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 @hsconduct- Drug Abuse- Evaluation Officer) with an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He served 02 years 03 months and 02 days total
active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
Basis for Request. Applicant does not claim an injustice in his discharge. He only states he is
an outstanding citizen working in his contribution to society for 20 years.
Facts. On 27 Apr 8 1, applicant was notified by his commander that involuntary discharge
action had been initiated against him with a view to effecting his discharge because he stole three
packages of processed file, the property of the AAFES. For this he received Art 15 punishment.
Then, between 27 Nov 79 and 08 Mar 81 applicant had received an Art 15, letter of reprimand,
verbal reprimands and numerous counselings for infiaction ranging from being late to
Commander’s Call to sleeping on duty and failing to maintain his room. Finally, he received Art
15 punishment for possession of marijuana. An Evaluation Officer was duly appointed an
interviewed the applicant and made a recommendation that the applicant shoufd be given an
administrative separation for fiequent involvement and drug involvement. Applicant was afforded
the opportunity to submit statements in rebuttal and submitted a statement requesting the chance
to be rehabilitated. The case was reviewed by the base legal office and found to legally sufficient
to support discharge. The discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 05
May 81 and directed that the applicant be finished a general discharge certificate without
probation.
Discussion. This case has been reviewed for separation processing and 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.
Recommendation. 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. He has not filed a timely request.
@ A d P
JOHN C. WOOTEN, DAF
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
Applicact's s u b x i s s i o ~ is at Exhibit Ti. The appropriate Air Force off;re evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory o p i n i o r . Appiicant's resporse to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. l2ursuar.t ts the 2 o a r d ' s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigatlon, Washington, D .
The appropriate Air Force off ice evaluated applicant I 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). .” Another states “I know that I can reenlist rather than extend, but I have elected to execute this extension instead of reenlisting.” Both of these statements clearly indicate the applicant was aware of the reenlistment options.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 9 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4M be changed, and, that he be advised as to the meaning of his narrative reason for separation of "Defective Enlistment Agreement." The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit D). The applicant is...
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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). Applicant states he understood he would be on convalescent leave during this time. Applicant was on leave en route between assignment from Leave history shows 8 days charged leave 1 Jun - 8 Jun AFB to days c o n s n t leave 14 - 20 Jun 97, and 39 days charged leave 21 Jun - 29 Jul AFB hospital on 9 Jun due to acute low back 97.
f o r a 31TY move from The accessorial charge The appllcart is :--c+- -.ls - 7 i 37-,217 45 ILTT stated that after a thorough review of the records, they can find no evidence of miscounseling or an error on the part of the Thus, ILTT recommended the application be denied Government. After a t h o r o u g h review of the evidence of record and applicant s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be reimbursed additional expenses for moving his sailboat. Diamond, Member Mr. Henry RGmG...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Section 8961, Title 10, U.S.C., (Atch 5) states: “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law a regular or reserve of the Air Force who retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement.” Again, based on the Comptroller...
Funds allotted for payment of air mechanics are continued i n force u n t i l authorization for increased grades is received and conversion made i n compliance w i t h instructions above mechanics ratings t o noncommissioned grades is based on the fund8 allotted In t o the Air Corps f o r air mechanics grades within t h e present fiscal year. SUBJECT: TO : ,Appointment of' Air Mechanics t o Grades' Cammanding Generals, Army Air Forces, Army Ground Forces, Services of Supply, Armies, Army...