RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03258
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did all he could to fix his situation, but to no avail. He apologize
for taking so long, but he didn’t realize the importance of an honorable
discharge until now.
In support of the appeal applicant submits three character references and
four certificates from his place of employment.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 February 1982 for a period
of four years, in the grade of airman basic.
On or about 7 June 1982, applicant absent himself from his organization,
3403 Student Squadron, located at Keesler AFB, MS, and did remain so absent
until on or about 15 October 1982 (a total of 128 days).
Applicant was promoted to airman on 2 August 1982.
On 5 November 1982, applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of
trial by court-martial.
On 10 November 1982, the commander recommended the applicant’s request be
approved and he be furnished an under other than honorable conditions
discharge.
On 17 November 1982, the Court-Martial Convening/Discharge Authority
approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial
action and directed he be issued an under other than honorable conditions
discharge because of the extended AWOL.
On 17 November 1982, the applicant, while serving in the grade of airman,
was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10
(Voluntary Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and received an
under other than honorable conditions discharge. He served 9 months and 16
days of total active service.
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 the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the
discharge authority. Furthermore, the applicant was provided full
administrative due process and the records indicate the member’s military
service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. Therefore, they
recommend denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he made a
mistake in judgment 18 years ago, he has been and still is a productive
member of society. He doesn’t have a criminal record, finished his
education and now works full-time at a high school in Wood County, West
Virginia. He states that he would just like
for all that he has become since his adolescent years come full circle
because sometimes some people deserve a second chance, and he feels as
though he is one of them.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 23 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Apr 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 May 99.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, undated
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: By Article 15 action on 26 November 1997, the applicant was given a suspended reduction from staff sergeant to senior airman for committing adultery between, on or about 27 October 1996 and 5 January 1997. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, advised that applicant’s commander denied his request...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02541 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1960 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable or, in the alternative, his first (honorable) enlistment be separated from his second enlistment so he can receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jun 90 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the discharge authority direct the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. On 12 Nov 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02109
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02109 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He had completed a total of 6 month and 11 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge. DPPRS indicated that the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02743
The applicant was reported absent without leave from 26-28 April 1966 and 20-23 May 1966. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant (Identification Record No. 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...
On 17 Sep 98, applicant was notified by his commander that she was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The records indicate the applicant’s military service was properly reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this application and indicated that a review of the applicant’s case file was conducted and the RE code is...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02763
On 23 September 1975 and 17 February 1982, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change of his discharge and denied his request. On 27 January 1976, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Air Force Correction of Military Records Board. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01399 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letter of Evaluation (LOE), dated 3 Feb 96, become a permanent addendum to his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 Nov 96; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 19 May 98, be corrected to reflect his Date of Separation as Indefinite and any reference to a retirement date...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02972 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 5 May 82, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request For Discharge for the Good of the Service) with service characterized as under other than honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02164
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jul 04. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.