RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03141
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
code be changed from “2B” to “3A.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was inequitable and his service should have been
characterized as honorable.
The applicant states that after already having been documented with a
tardiness problem, he was placed in a situation where he was expected to
report for duty at 0630 hours for the remaining four months of his
enlistment. Prior to that time, he had to work either from either 1500 to
2300 hours or 2300 to 0700 hours his entire career. The characterization
of his discharge is based mostly on his tardiness during the last 5 months
of his service. His entire 3 years and 7 months of service should be
considered. His work record, as indicated in his performance reports, was
always above reproach. There was never any question of his ability. In
addition, his problems may have been related to his Attention Deficit
Disorder (ADD) and immaturity at the time. Since his discharge, he has
remained married for 16 years, raised four children and been employed by
Boeing for 15 years. If his RE code is changed to “3A,” he can apply for
enlistment in the Navy Reserve.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of his performance
reports, extracts from his discharge package, and a copy of his 15-year
work history with Boeing.
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 7 August 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of four years.
On 18 April 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated administrative
discharge against the applicant for misconduct based on the applicant
receiving four Letters of Reprimand (3 Dec 84, 22 Feb 85, 29 Mar 85, and 16
April 1985) for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place
of duty; an Article 15 for failing to obey a lawful order to not drive
onto, or patrol, the base perimeter roads and golf course roads; and a
Letter of Counseling for being late for a mandatory formation.
On 30 April 1985, the proposed action was found legally sufficient and the
discharge authority approved his discharge on 3 May 1985.
On 6 May 1985, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
10 (Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline), with
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He
completed 3 years and 9 months of active service.
Applicant’s performance profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
6 Aug 82 8
26 Dec 82 7
1 Sep 83 7
2 Feb 84 8
2 Feb 85 8
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the
application and states that the discharge was consistent with the
procedural requirements of the discharge regulation and within the sound
discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not submitted any
new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an
upgrade of his discharge. Therefore, they recommend the application be
denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Special Programs and AFBCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the
application and states that applicant’s RE code of “2B” is correct and
identifies the applicant as being involuntarily separated with less than an
honorable discharge.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 26
January 2001, for review and response within 30 days. 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. 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 the characterization of the discharge and assigned RE code
were appropriate to the existing circumstances.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that
the discharge and RE code be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have
considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to his post-
service activities and his 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 8 March 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Jan 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Jan 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Jan 01.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01690
On 5 November 1987 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02807
Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 7 Jun 85. He petitioned the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to upgrade his discharge to honorable in 1993. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00338
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 11 July 1985 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - pattern of discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities) with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 April 2003, a copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00805
Several post-trial clemency evaluations were submitted and, while some recommendations were mixed, the majority recommended the trial recommendations of clemency be accepted. On 5 Dec 96, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB). In the attached statement, the applicant indicates he would appreciate an upgrade to a general discharge if honorable was not possible.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded, indicating that nothing can change the facts or the past. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00157 INDEX CODE 100.06 110.02 COUNSELS: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1985 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge) be changed so that he can enlist in the Army. ...
Applicant submitted a written statement to the discharge authority along with two letters of support. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAES reviewed applicant's request and states that the RE code is correct (see Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force advisories states that DPPRS was incorrect in stating that...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00041
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 21 Nov 85, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge without opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. Kendrick., Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00041: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 07, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03841
He received records of counseling on six occasions (11 Aug 82, 5 and 6 Jan 83, 4 May 83, and 10 and 11 May 83) for failure to meet AFR 39-6 Responsibilities. After reviewing the evidence of record, the applicant’s overall quality of service and the events which precipitated his separation from the Air Force, we find no evidence to indicate that either the assigned separation code or the RE code are in error or unjust. ___________________________________________________________________ THE...