RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00912
INDEX NUMBER:106.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge be upgraded to
general (under honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is truly sorry for what he did and feels that due to his change in
life, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, that he is a new person and
is asking the Air Force to change his discharge.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted letters of character
references from acquaintances and employers.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 23 May 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of airman basic (E-1). He served on continuous active duty and
entered his last enlistment on 23 November 1982. Prior to the events
cited below, he was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).
On 04 February 1986, applicant was convicted by Special Court-Martial
for wrongful use of cocaine between 16 Aug 85 and 16 Sep 85. He was
sentenced to reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and a bad
conduct discharge.
On 26 September 1986, he was discharged under Special Court-Martial
Order #70, with a bad conduct discharge. He served 19 years, 4 months
and 4 days on active duty.
On 04 May 2000, the applicant appeared and testified, with counsel,
before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). The AFDRB found
a sufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for a change of discharge.
It changed the punitive discharge to an administrative discharged
characterized as under other than honorable conditions.
A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AFDRB HEARING RECORD:
On 22 June 2000, a copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
On 28 July 2000, the FBI Report of Investigation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment. At that time, the applicant was
also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his
activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). 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. Evidence of record
reflects that the applicant’s bad conduct discharge was upgraded by
the Air Force Discharge Review Board to under other than honorable
conditions on the basis of clemency. We have noted the letters of
character reference submitted in applicant’s behalf indicating that he
is held in high esteem by his acquaintances and employers.
Nonetheless, in view of the seriousness of the misconduct which led to
his court-martial and subsequent discharge, and in view of the
contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, we are not inclined to
recommend further upgrade of the characterization of the applicant’s
discharge on the basis of clemency at this time. In view of the
foregoing,
the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to general (under
honorable conditions) is not favorably considered.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 17 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 18 May 00.
Exhibit D. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Jun 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jul 00.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
Chair
On 10 Aug 53, he was reduced to the grade of Airman 3rd Class under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to report at appointed time to his place of duty and making a false statement. On 25 Oct 54, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) examined and reviewed the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change in the type or nature of his discharge, and accordingly denied his request (see Exhibit C). ...
On 19 September 1955, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his BCD to under honorable conditions (general) (Exhibit C). Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ...
He then received a third court-martial conviction for failure to go. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that after receiving what he was told to be a general discharge, because of financial and family problems, he went to flight school.
Upon his discharge in 1969, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicated that, in addition to the then current four years “net service this period” he was given creditable service “other service” of 1 year, 2 months, and 3 days. He has lived his adult life with the thought that his undesirable time was deemed creditable as a result of his original appeal to the AFDRB and serving honorably the additional 4 years. Insufficient relevant...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01004
Upon his discharge in 1969, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicated that, in addition to the then current four years “net service this period” he was given creditable service “other service” of 1 year, 2 months, and 3 days. He has lived his adult life with the thought that his undesirable time was deemed creditable as a result of his original appeal to the AFDRB and serving honorably the additional 4 years. Insufficient relevant...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. BENEDICT A. KAUSAL Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case of , Docket Number 88-002610 I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and do not agree with the opinion of the majority of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00358
It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Novel, Panel Chair Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit...
The Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI) Report of Investigation (ROI) reveals that an investigation was initiated based on information that the applicant allegedly raped a female Air Force member on 6 Apr 97, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. Action Authority must provide AFOSI with a Report of Action Taken and evidence disposition instructions.” On 20 Oct 97, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00930 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's request to upgrade his discharge to honorable, change the reason for...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00205
A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation pertaining to the applicant’s PRP permanent decertification, the discharge action would have...