RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00243
INDEX NUMBER: (A49.00),(A61.00)
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his 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). Applicant's response
to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.
We note that the Air Force evaluation incorrectly stated that the
reasons for the applicant’s discharge included an Article 15 for
assault upon another airman, and counselings for being late to pick up
passengers and driving a bus recklessly. Nevertheless, after careful
consideration of the circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded
that the discharge action was in error or unjust. The evidence of
record supports the stated reasons for applicant’s discharge for
unsatisfactory performance; i.e., numerous documented instances of
less than desirable duty performance, an Article 15 for failure to go,
and a civilian court conviction for DWI. We found no evidence that
responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the
applicant’s separation, that pertinent regulations were violated or
that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at
the time of discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to disturb the existing record.
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 available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board, Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Laurence M. Groner,
and Ms. Olga M. Crerar, considered this application on
28 June 2000 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E. Applicant's 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 applicant’s response to the advisory opinion 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. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
He was further advised that AFM 39-10 was the governing directive at the time of his discharge. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 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). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion 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 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). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion 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/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant/counsel.
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 for review and response, within 30 days (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.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00561
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 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.