RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03282
INDEX CODE: 110
COUNSEL: DAV
HEARING: YES
The applicant requests that his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable or general. Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D. C., provided a copy of an investigation report, which
is attached at Exhibit C.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and
provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application
be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the
applicant and counsel for review and response (Exhibit E). Counsel’s
response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F.
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 adequately rebutted by applicant or counsel. 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 documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give the
Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have materially added
to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not
favorably considered.
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. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and
Mr. John E. Pettit considered this application on
9 September 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. FBI Report
D. Advisory Opinion
E. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
F. Counsel’s Response
Counsel’s response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit F. 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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application 10 May 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request to change his RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant's...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request to change his RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant's...
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). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. 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 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). Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application on 6 May 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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). 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 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). 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 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's counsel and applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00688
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's counsel and applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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.