AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 98- 02317
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
FE. $, 2 ;.j$$
Applicant requests that his general (under 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.
Members of the Board, Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Mr. Walter J. Hosey,
and Mr. Richard A. Peterson considered this application on
10 February 1999, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36- 2603, and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
I
.
D E P A R T M E N T O F THE A I R F O R C E
H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR F O R C E P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H AIR F O R C E B A S E T E X A S
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 airman, was discharged fiom the Air Force 07 Jan
82 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitability Apathy, Defective Attitude) with an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge. He served 01 year 11 months and 24 days total active
service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
Basis for Request. Applicant does not claim an injustice in his discharge.
Facts. On 02 Dec 8 1, applicant was notified by his commander that involuntary discharge
action had been initiated against him with a view to effecting his discharge for defective attitude
and progressive downward trend in duty performance. Applicant had received two Article 15
actions for failure to obey a lawful order on 21 Jan 81 which resulted in a reduction in grade, fine,
and correctional custody. He also received ATC Forms 18 for coming to work late, failure to
complete work when having stated it was finished, and failure to keep filling work caught up. An
Evaluation Officer was duly appointed an interviewed the applicant and made a finding that
member was unsuitable for fbrther military and recommended his discharge with a general
discharge. Applicant did not submitted a statement in his own behalf 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 Jan 82 and directed that the applicant be
hrnished 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 identi@ 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.
- JOHN C. WOOTEN, DAF
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
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.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested 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 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01796- COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MQ 2 7 s988 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 98-01796 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant has provided post-service documentation which is attached at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. 19 M a r & 1979, American Red Cmss reprsemtive,his authorized...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action. Applicant appeared before a Board of Officers without counsel convened to review the pertinent facts and circumstances and make recommendation to the discharge authority if he should be discharged fiom the service.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00826
Evaluation in the disability evaluation system should have followed where the most likely recommendation would have been unfit for duty. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
The fact is, the applicant presented himself to mental health services during his period of service with apparently bonafide evidence of psychotic hallucinations/behavior and this was not considered in his discharge processing. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 17 Aug 98 for review and response....
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 records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) , The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The applicant is requesting correction to his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) in the areas of Acquisition Corps, Joint Duty History and Decorations. The applicant believes his OSB should have reflected “YES” under the Acquisition Corps area due...
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).
I 4 By letters dated 7 August 1997, 26 October 1997, 9 December 1997, and 16 February 1998, applicant requested reconsideration of his He provided copies of documentation submitted with his appeal. 3 AFBCMR 91-01962 JAJM recommended that the Board deny the applicant's request: (1) on the basis that it is untimely; (2) on the merits; and ( 3 ) because it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Applicant contends that his SF Form 88, Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 August...