RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00365
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 21 Jan 83 under the
provisions of AFR 39-10 be upgraded to honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His accomplishments after his discharge are a basis for an upgrade.
In support of the application, the applicant provides copy of a DD Form
293, Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces
of the United States, a letter from the Director of the Association &
Cooperative Missions Department and copies of certificates of completion of
two seminary extension courses (Exhibit A).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Jan 1980. While serving
in the grade of airman, he was discharged on 21 Jan 1983 under the
provisions of AFR 39-10 for Misconduct-Drug Abuse, and received a general
discharge (under honorable conditions). He was credited with 3 years and 8
days total active military service.
The relevant facts, extracted from the available record, are contained in
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 copy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation report was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit E).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Separations Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRSP, states that although the
applicant has made some personal improvements in his life, it does not
overshadow the conduct leading to his discharge. The applicant wrongfully
possessed marijuana on two separate occasions for which he received Article
15 punishment. In addition, he received three letters of reprimand for
various offenses, including failure to go and unsatisfactory performance.
DPPRSP states the discharge was within sound discretion of the discharge
authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.
Additionally, the applicant has failed to submit any new evidence or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge
process nor has he provided any facts warranting an upgrade of the
discharge he received. Therefore, DPPRSP recommends the applicant's
request be denied (Exhibit C).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response. As of this date, this office has received no response
(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. After careful consideration of
the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to
effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the
governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken
against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct.
In addition, in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record we
are not persuaded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge
warrants an upgrade to honorable on the basis of clemency. Having found no
error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the
applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant
favorable action on his request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 31 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRSP Letter, dated 2 Apr 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 01.
Exhibit E. FBI Report 408733AA7.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
As of this date, this office has received no response. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that his separation code should remain the same since he did in fact, voluntarily request discharge for the good of the service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...
On 11 Sep 84, applicant was notified that his commander was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for drug abuse. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul 59 and was discharged on 20 May 63 with an undesirable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s reconstructed military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. In response to the Board's request, the FBI provided a copy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03553
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that they were unable to identify with an arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS indicates there is no documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records relating to the reason for the discharge or the discharge process. In accordance with the 1959...
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 24 April 1959 under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.
Applicant’s request is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ 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. Exhibit E. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03732
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 3 May 1985, an assistant staff judge advocate assigned to the staff of the group commander found the file legally sufficient and recommended that the case be forwarded to the discharge authority with a recommendation that the applicant not be retained but that he be discharged with a general discharge. On 9 May 1985, the group commander recommended that the discharge authority approve the recommendation for separation and accept the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03236 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his 25 days of lost time be removed from his records. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force that the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to general (under...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00675
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00675 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 May 1955, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman...
However, considering the discharge occurred over 40 years ago and considering his previous four years of honorable service and the offense that caused his BCD, DPPRS recommends clemency. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Mar 00.