AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION O$ MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02581
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his 26 January 1978 general 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, Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Mr. Henry Romo Jr.,
and Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, considered this application on
28 January 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U . S . C . 1552.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE LdAAL
/l$LL
Panel Chair
u
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
.
DEPARTMENT O F T H E AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
OCT 1 9
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 from the Air Force 26 Jan
78 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Misconduct) with an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge. He served 02 years 02 months and 14 days total active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
Basis for Request. Applicant states he believes he was unjustly classified. He has a clean
record with police for over 20 years after separation.
Facts. On 19 Dec 77, applicant was notified by his commander that involuntary discharge
action had been initiated against him with a view to effecting his discharge for misconduct.
Specifically, applicant had received three Art 15s, one for failure to go (three specifications), one
for driving on base while driving privileges were suspended and one for failure to obey a lawful
order. He had received five Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Indebtedness, and three record
of counselings. His file reflects that his supervisors had on eight occasions made memos for the
record documenting additional failures to go, poor job performance, poor OJT progression, and
one incident of sleeping on duty. Applicant was advised he had a right to consult counsel and the
right to submit statements in his own behalf. He did not consult counsel and did not submitted
statements 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 23 Jan 78 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 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.
Q’bLL+f!!!r
JOHN C. WOOT N, DAF
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions 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. Applicant did not identi@ any specific errors in the discharg&progessing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the discharge he received.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions DEPARTMENT O F T H E AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS A I R FORCE P E R S O N N E L CENTER RANDOLPH A I R FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13 The applicant, while serving...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). He received an RE code of “2H: Participating in Track 4 or 5 of the Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment (SART) program for drugs, or has failed to complete Track 4.” Applicant’s military personnel records indicate he received a general discharge for “A Pattern of Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” This type of...
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). t In September 1998, our office reviewed the applicants records in response to his request for the PH.
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. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR L t r Forwarding Advisory Opinion D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R F O R C E HEADQUARTERS...
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 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 the stated reason for...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SEP 1 6 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-00847 COUNSEL: NONE C l HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that the citation to accompany the award of the Air Force Commendation Medal, second oak leaf cluster, (AFCM 20LC) be added to his Officer Selection Record (OSR) for review by the CY 97A lieutenant colonel medical/dental corps selection board, which convened on 5 November 1997. The appropriate Air Force office...
t AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 2 8 0 8 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his current enlistment be changed to an extension, or he be allowed to reenlist with a higher Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) Multiple. 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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). requesting one year of service credit be granted for his professional years required for one year of service credit. Service Credit For Line Of The Air Force, Chaplain, Judge Advocate, And Air Force General Counsel’s Honors Program Officers.
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.