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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His wife left him for another serviceman and he had problems dealing
with it. He was young and he should not be having this follow him the
rest of his life. He received the Good Conduct medal and had a great
record up to that point.
In support of his appeal, he provided a letter from his current wife
and his step-daughter.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
was 29 Aug 76.
Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) profile from 1978 to 1981
reflects overall ratings of “8.”
Applicant’s dissolution of his marriage from his wife was finalized on
4 Mar 81. Because he failed to submit the proper paperwork to Finance
to change his allowances, he received over $3,000 in unauthorized
allowances.
On 23 Dec 81, applicant’s ex-wife updated her finance records.
Finance, at that time, discovered applicant’s overpayments and
reported it to the Office of Special Investigations (OSI).
On 22 Jan 82, applicant was interviewed by the OSI.
On 2 Mar 82, a Duty Status Change indicated the applicant failed to
report to his place of duty on 1 Mar 82 and was placed in absent
without leave (AWOL) status and remained in this status for nine days.
On 10 Mar 82, a Duty Status Change indicated that on approximately
9 Mar 82, the Squadron Section Commander received a call from the
applicant’s landlady who stated that applicant was in his apartment.
Anchorage Police and a staff sergeant and captain responded and gained
entry to applicant’s apartment. Applicant was placed in their custody
and transported to Mental Health after conferring with Security Police
and base legal office. Applicant was admitted to the Mental Health
ward.
On 18 Mar 82, applicant was diagnosed by Mental Health with an
adjustment disorder with depressed mood and atypical personality
disorder.
On 31 Mar 82, the applicant requested discharge under AFM 39-12,
paragraph 2-78, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial. He was counseled by the Area Defense Counsel and was advised
of his rights and privileges.
On 5 Apr 82, the commander requested applicant’s request for discharge
be approved for the following reasons:
a. Discharge action would be in the applicant’s and
Government’s best interest.
b. Applicant’s personal and financial problems would only
become a worse burden on the Air Force and its image. He had
repeatedly been unable to solve these problems.
c. He had an Atypical Personality Disorder as diagnosed by
the hospital.
On 13 Apr 82, a legal review indicated the evidence contained in the
case file was legally sufficient to support separation under AFM 39-
12, Section F.
On 16 Apr 82, the commander reviewed the request for discharge and
specifically found that the applicant did not commit the offenses in
order to obtain discharge and his separation under Section F would not
adversely affect the morale and discipline of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.
The commander recommended approval of applicant’s discharge with the
issuance of an other than honorable conditions discharge certificate.
On 3 May 82, the commander approved the applicant’s request for
discharge and indicated that applicant would be furnished an under
other than honorable conditions discharge certificate.
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 conditions (UOTHC) in the
grade of sergeant. He was credited with 5 years, 7 months, and 28
days of active service.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report
indicating they were unable to locate an arrest record (see
Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed
this application and indicated that applicant did not identify any
specific errors in the discharge processing. However, considering his
otherwise honorable service and the severity of the offenses, DPPRS
recommends clemency. If a check of the FBI files proves negative,
they recommend the discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions
(general).
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 1 Oct
99 for review and response. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We noted applicant’s
entire case file, including the circumstances that led to the ensuing
UOTHC discharge. Based on the available evidence, we have no reason
to believe that the discharge itself was inappropriate. While it
appears that court-martial action was not preferred against the
applicant, we note that he chose to be discharged in lieu of trial by
court-martial. We concede, however, that the possibility exists that
applicant had emotional and personal problems and note that he was
diagnosed with a personality disorder. We believe the undesirable
discharge served its purpose and recognize the adverse impact of the
discharge applicant received; and, while it may have been appropriate
at the time, we believe it would be an injustice for applicant to
continue to suffer its effects. Accordingly, on the basis of
clemency, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as
indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 5 May 82, he was
honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 1 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Sep 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 99.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
INDEX CODE: 110
AFBCMR 98-02972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that on 5 May 1982, he was
honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Boards Agency
She has been married to an active duty Air Force member for 23 years and supported his entire career (Exhibit A). The board recommended that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness with a general discharge. The records indicated that the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00533
She has been married to an active duty Air Force member for 23 years and supported his entire career (Exhibit A). The board recommended that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness with a general discharge. The records indicated that the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1989-02125
The applicant requested an administrative discharge board. After consulting with military counsel, on 12 July 1973, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of AFM 39-12. The records indicate the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The applicant requested an administrative discharge board. After consulting with military counsel, on 12 July 1973, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of AFM 39-12. The records indicate the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 17 September 1973. We reviewed the evidence provided by the applicant in the form of character references and find it insufficient to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 17 Sep 93.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00251 INDEX CODES: 131.00, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the effective date for his promotion to the grade of master sergeant as 1 Apr 96, rather than 1 Nov 97, with back and allowances. DPPPWB believes the applicant needs to provide a copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00826
Evaluation in the disability evaluation system should have followed where the most likely recommendation would have been unfit for duty. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
The fact is, the applicant presented himself to mental health services during his period of service with apparently bonafide evidence of psychotic hallucinations/behavior and this was not considered in his discharge processing. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 17 Aug 98 for review and response....
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant-'s request and provided an advisory opinion T O the Board rezommending the application be deniea (Exhibit 1L. The applicant is requesting that his discharge be upgraded to-honorable Basis for Request. He hrther admitted that since Apr 76 he committed consensual homosexual acts with three individuals The board found applicant elisible for discharge and recommended his separation with a discharge under other than honorable conditions The...
Based on the information provided, DFAS-DE/FYCC finds there has not been an error or an injustice and recommended the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D). Inasmuch as the applicant is a civil service employee working in the same organization, performing similar duties, as he did while on active duty, we are of the opinion that the Government has received no less benefit now that he is a civilian than if he stayed on active duty. TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-03192 MEMORANDUM...