RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03010
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: DEPT OF VET AFFAIRS
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgrade to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is writing to formally apologize to the United States of America, and to
the United States Air Force for his conduct which caused him to receive a
discharge under the heading of general/under honorable conditions. He
states that he has lived with this regret for the past 14 years and wish
that it never happened. He also states that prior to this incident his
evaluations and proficiency ratings were reported as good and he was
intending to make the US Air Force his career.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits three character references, and
a copy of his DD Form 214.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 March 19980, for a period
of 4 years.
On 15 April 1983, applicant received an Article 15 for a pattern of
misconduct on or about 4 April 1983, with imposed punishment as suspended
reduction in grade to airman first class, 30 days correctional custody
suspended for 15 days, and fined $100.00 for two months. Vacated remainder
of punishment on 22 August 1983 - reduced to airman first class and ordered
to perform 15 days correctional custody.
On 7 September 1983, applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully having
in his possession, and using, some quantity of marijuana on or about 4
August 1983, with imposed punishment as reduction in grade to airman, with
a new date of rank 7 September 1983, and ordered to forfeit $100.00.
On 16 September 1983, the applicant was notified that his commander was
recommending him for a general discharge in accordance with AFR 39-10,
Paragraph 5-47a - a Pattern of Misconduct. Specifically, applicant had in
his possession and use marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. He
had disobeyed a lawful order and had failed to go. He had also received a
parking ticket. Applicant consulted counsel and waived his right to submit
statements. In his recommendation for discharge, the commander cited that
he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.
On 30 September 1983, the discharge was approved by the discharge authority
and on 3 October 1983, applicant was discharged, in the grade of airman (E-
2), under honorable conditions (general). He served 3 years and 7 months.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the
application and states that 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 applicant’s
military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 January 1999, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant/counsel for review and response within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 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. We find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant’s
discharge. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate
standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive
evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not
afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. We
conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing
circumstances.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered
applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the
discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities and
accomplishments. On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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 27 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Dec 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 99.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02273 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Applicant has provided, through his Senator’s office, documentation regarding his post service activities. We also find insufficient...
The discharge complied with directives in effect at the time and records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that, while in the Air Force, he had frequent problems with the people who shared his barracks. DOUGLAS...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03512 INDEX CODE: A61.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided several post-service letters. Exhibit B.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and states that he is enclosing a statement from the First Sergeant which supports his client’s contention. The statement from his first sergeant states that, with the Air Force in a downsizing mode, he recommended that the applicant be separated. DOUGLAS J....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02180
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 27 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administration Separation of Airman (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 Aug 84, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of Request for discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with service characterized as UOTHC. Exhibit B.
While separating from the Air Force, he was told that he would only be given a paid move to his HOR and anything else was up to him. DPPRS indicated that the applicant elected to separate at Air Force Base as indicated in his application to separate under the Palace Chase program. In view of the above, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below, which will provide the applicant with the proper relief.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that because the applicant’s master personnel records were destroyed in a fire, they are unable to make a recommendation. The evidence of record reflects that the...
The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation was approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that it was explained to him by Air Force personnel that if...
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 | CY1999 | BC-1998-00805
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that the dates on the AFCM certificate are what he is trying to correct and have permanently recorded on his DD Form 214. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission, the Board was sufficiently persuaded that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to...