RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03296
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Nothing is in error with his discharge, but his post military life
conduct has been exceptional.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits several character
references.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the Brief prepared by
an Examiner for the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings. A complete copy of the AFDRB brief and the letter are
attached at Exhibit B and C.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the
application and states that they believe the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the sound
discretion of the discharge authority. They recommend the applicant’s
records remain the same and his request be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 March 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. 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 find no impropriety
in the characterization of applicant’s discharge. 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. We conclude,
therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing
circumstances.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have
considered applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which
precipitated the discharge, and limited evidence related to post-
service activities and accomplishments. On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.
_________________________________________________________________
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 15 August 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Feb 00.
Exhibit D. FBI Report.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Mar 00.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge proceedings nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit B.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 80-03066 97-02285 INDEX CODES: A93.35, 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge and any and all records and or system(s) of records or information of the Department of the Air Force relating to his discharge be voided. The adverse decision of the Board of...
Accordingly, we find that corrective action is appropriate as a matter of equity and on the basis of clemency and recommend the discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit B. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-01084 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02444
On 20 Sep 02, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as general, under honorable conditions. On 8 Jan 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-02444 in Executive Session...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03938
On 4 April 1989, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable. The board further concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of his appeal are at Exhibit A. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was...
Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Although there is no indication in the evidence provided that the applicant’s service characterization was erroneous or unjust at the time he was separated, it is our opinion that the evidence provided is sufficient to warrant the approval of the requested relief based on clemency. We therefore recommend that...
He recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. That office states that, based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 May 01.
He recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. That office states that, based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 May 01.