RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00723
INDEX NUMBER: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was hastily and unjustly performed. He believes that it
was more severe than others under similar circumstances. He admits to
immaturity being a factor. His life has changed and he has had no
further involvement with any civil or military authorities.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted his personal statement,
a police report, letter of character reference from his pastor, a
civilian performance evaluation, and training certificates received
while in the Air Force. His complete submission is attached at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 22 April 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for
4 years, in the grade of airman basic (E-1). Prior to the events
cited below, he was promoted to the grade of airman (E-2). He
received one performance report with an overall promotion
recommendation of 9.
On 12 October 1989, the squadron section commander initiated
administrative discharge action against the applicant for
discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities. The
specific reasons for the proposed action were that: (a) on or about
10 September 1989, on Randolph AFB (RAFB), TX, the applicant drove his
vehicle while intoxicated, and in violation of an order revoking his
driving privileges, for which he received and Article 15, with
punishment consisting of a reduction in grade to airman basic and
forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months; (b) on or about 13
August 1989, on RAFB, TX, applicant was disorderly in that he was
involved in an altercation with another military member and destroyed
their private property, for which he received a letter of reprimand;
and (c) on or about 14 July 1989, in or near Universal City, Texas,
applicant drove his vehicle while intoxicated, for which he received a
letter of reprimand.
On 19 October 1989, after consulting with counsel and having been
advised of his rights, applicant submitted documents in his own
behalf. On 25 October 1989, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended that
the applicant be separated with a general discharge without probation
or rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved a general
discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.
On 03 November 1989, the applicant was discharged under provisions of
AFR 39-10, with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions). He served 1 year, 6 months, and 22 days on active duty.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 June 2000, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his
general discharge to honorable. A complete copy of the AFDRB Hearing
Record is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 July 2000, a copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the misconduct of the applicant
during his military service. We noted the applicant’s post-service
activities, but were not persuaded they warranted an upgrade of the
applicant’s discharge at this time. We also agree with the decision
of the AFDRB and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
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 12 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 28 Jun 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jun 00.
PATRICK R. WHEELER
Panel Chair
With respect to the RE code of 2B that he received, we note that the Secretary of the Air Force has statutory authority to promulgate rules and regulations governing the administration of the Air Force. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. While it appears that he has made a good start toward becoming a productive member of society, we also find insufficient evidence...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01105 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman (E-21, which was the grade he held at the time of discharge. Applicant alleges that the discharge authority discharged him prematurely before completion of an investigation of three Inspector General (IG) complaints he filed and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03548
Applicant was discharged on 29 February 1988, in the grade of airman basic with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions). The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his general (under honorable conditions) discharge upgraded to honorable. Therefore, based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).
A complete copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the AFDRB Hearing Record and submitted additional documentation to further substantiate his contention that his 13 November 1991 civil court conviction had been expunged in 1997. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0386
{| CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2002-0386 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, a change in the Reason and Authority for the discharge, and to the RE Code. Under Air Force regulations if the separation authority does not | accept a conditional waiver of the discharge board, he can either return the case to the installation to be heard by a discharge board or can request and unconditional waiver of the board. In this...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01855
On 19 August 1987, AFDRB denied the applicant’s request for upgrade and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file; the discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00104
He recommended a general discharge. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable on 12 June 1998. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0505
. a‘ AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AMN 1 AFSN/SSAN
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01907
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 21 August 2002. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02322 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge) be changed so she can reenlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). On 9 Apr 93, the applicant submitted a...