RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00018
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He never sold drugs. His record was clean. He was set up by another
soldier who set him up to save himself. He wanted to fight to stay in
the military, but his lawyer said to take the discharge. The drugs
were found in a coat belonging to R--- K--- he had left at his house
just minutes before his house was raided. The drugs were then found
at his house. He states he had 10 years of good service.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 February 1973.
The applicant’s master personnel record does not contain the discharge
case file for review. However, based on the DD Form 214 (Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he served ten years three
months and ten days.
On 31 May 1983, while serving in the grade of staff sergeant, he was
discharged under the provision of AFR 39-10, Request for Discharge in
Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial, and separated with an under other than
honorable conditions discharge.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on the basis of the data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
On 24 May 2001, a letter was forwarded to applicant requesting
information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit
D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. Based upon the
presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and
without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's
discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.
4. 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.
5. 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 available evidence related to post-
service activities and accomplishments. On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted. Therefore, based on the available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider
this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 19 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 May 01.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F. On 17 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report and a request to provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities was sent to the applicant (Exhibit G). On 23 Aug 01, applicant provided a statement explaining his activities since leaving the service. Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of...
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.
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.
After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled. Exhibit B.
Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available. 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. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence...
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...
On 13 Nov 52, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 Oct 52 until on or about 12 Nov 52. The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 9 Dec 1953, he was discharged with...
Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Exhibit E. Minority Report. While the applicant’s actions may have supported punishment by Article 15, I am not persuaded that the severity of the punishment, reduction in grade from CMSgt to SMSgt, is warranted.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03611
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03611 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Selection Record for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be corrected to include the Air Medal he was awarded for the period 16 January 1991 to 4 February 1991....
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant.