RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02592
INDEX NUMBER: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
All the facts leading up to his discharge are true, but it’s hard for
him to recall the incidents that happened over 19 years ago.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 14 September 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
in the grade of airman basic.
Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown
inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available.
Information extracted from the master personnel record reflected that
the applicant received four (4) Article 15’s; one (1) for being Absent
Without Leave (AWOL), and three (3) for failure to go. He also
received four (4) letters of reprimand for failure to go and failure
to maintain standards, as well as fourteen (14) letters of counseling
for failure to report and failure to meet AFR 35-10 standards.
On 19 March 1980, he was discharged under the provisions of AFM
39-12, for misconduct – frequent involvement with civil/military
authorities, with a UOTHC discharge. He was credited with 6 months
and 4 days of active duty service (excludes 2 days lost time).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 1 December 2000, that, on the basis of
data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and
states that the applicant’s master personnel record does not contain
the complete discharge case file, but only portions of the supporting
documents are available for review. They indicated that the applicant
received an Article 15 for being AWOL and also for behaving in a
disrespectful manner toward his superior officer. They also stated
that the applicant did not provide evidence of error in his discharge
case and that since the discharge occurred over 20 years ago, and
considering the misconduct that led to his UOTHC discharge, they
recommend clemency. Additionally, if the FBI report proves negative,
the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to general (under
honorable conditions).
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 November 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D).
On 14 December 2000, the applicant was invited to provide additional
evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service and
any documentary evidence pertaining to the facts surrounding his
discharge (Exhibit E). However, 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. Inasmuch as the
specific facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge are unknown,
based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of
governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must
assume that his discharge was proper and in compliance with
appropriate directive. Therefore, based on the available evidence of
record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this
application.
4. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration
based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a
recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis. After
careful consideration of the applicant’s overall quality of service
reflected in the available records and in the absence of evidence
relating to his post-service activities and conduct, 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 13 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 00.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Oct 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Nov 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 00.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that he was discharged on 4 June 1980, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, with a UOTHC discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01769
He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service. After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01873 INDEX CODE: 110.00 (DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Nevertheless, noting that the former servicemember suffered the adverse effects of his undesirable discharge for almost 37 years before his death in 1984 and...
In support of his application, the applicant provided copies of an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board and his separation documents (Exhibit A). Based on the limited evidence available for the Board’s review, we are not persuaded that further relief in the form of an upgrade of his discharge to honorable is warranted. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 April 2001.
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G). After careful consideration of the available facts contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board brief surrounding the applicant’s discharge, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s discharge. Exhibit B.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states the applicant was court-martialed because he pled guilty in a civil court and was sentenced to one-year civil confinement for assault with intent to rob. They further...
The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Feb 01, the Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that the applicant did not provide evidence of errors...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00004 INDEX CODE: A50.00, A50.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01344 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01559 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...