RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00823
INDEX CODE: 106.00/110.00
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable
and his reenlistment (RE) code be changed from “2B” to “1M.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was unjustly characterized and his reenlistment code was
issued in error due to fallacies in interpreting Air Force Regulations.
His post-service activities as a family man, Correctional Officer,
Community Service volunteer, and recipient of a Life Saving Award
constitutes clemency relief.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a
statement from his counsel and documentation associated with his discharge.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 24 September 1985, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force for a
period of 4 years. On 15 August 1989, he reenlisted for a period of 4
years. On 17 May 1993, he reenlisted for a period of 2 years. During
these periods of service, he was progressively promoted to senior airman (E-
4). His medals include the Good Conduct Medal w/1 OLC, Humanitarian
Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal.
On 27 September 1991, the commander issued the applicant a letter of
reprimand for failure to pay his electrical service and for two returned
checks due to insufficient funds.
On or about 6 January 1992, it was reported to the Section Commander that
the applicant had two checks returned to Charleston AFB Exchange due to
insufficient funds. In addition, on 9 March 1992, he failed to pay his
telephone bill. For these delinquencies, he was given a letter of
reprimand.
On 28 July 1993, the applicant was notified that the commander was
recommending him for a general discharge. The reason for the discharge was
an Article 15 issued to him for stealing a 10-speed bike valued at over
$100.00. For this offense, on 7 July 1993, he was reduced to the grade of
airman first class and received 14 days of extra duty. On 1 July 1993, he
submitted a waiver of his right to a board hearing contingent upon his
receipt of no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
10 (Misconduct – Other Serious Offenses) and received an Under Honorable
Conditions (General) discharge. He served 7 years, 11 months and 3 days of
total active military service.
On 9 March 1998, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the
applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and change in reenlistment
eligibility and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
warrant a change of his discharge and reenlistment code and denied his
request (Exhibit C).
On 28 June 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation advised they were
unable to locate any arrest records on the applicant. This information is
at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Separations and Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this
application and recommends denial. DPPRS states that the applicant did not
submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing. DPPRS
states that based on the documentation in file, the discharge was
consistent with the requirements of the discharge regulation (See Exhibit
E).
The Special Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and
states that the Reenlistment Eligibility Code of “2B separated with a
general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions discharge” is correct (See
Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant’s counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and reasserted his
original contentions and reiterates that the discharge process was
prejudicial and should have been impartial. Counsel states that the
applicant should be given a second chance to serve his nation. Counsel’s
response is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Other than the assertions of the
applicant and counsel, documentary evidence has not been provided which
would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was contrary to the
provisions of the discharge directive under which it was effected, that his
commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that the information
contained in the discharge case file was factually incorrect. We noted the
documentation the applicant provided regarding his conduct since his 1993
discharge for misconduct. The evidence indicates that he has been a
productive member of his community and has conducted his affairs in a
responsible manner. While we commend the applicant’s success in this
regard, we do not find that these actions have been in evidence for a
sufficiently lengthy period to warrant exercising clemency. Accordingly,
we find no basis to act favorably on his request for an upgrade of his
discharge at this time. Should the applicant continue in this responsible
manner and provide evidence of a lengthy and established pattern of good
citizenship, he may, of course, submit a request for clemency at a later
time. Additionally, we are not inclined to recommend that the applicant’s
reenlistment code be changed from “2B to “1M” since the 2B is appropriate
based on the reason for his separation and service characterization of his
service. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
___________________________________________________________________
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 24 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 March 2001 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 9 March 1998.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, w/FBI response, dated 28 June 2001.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 April 2001.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 23 April 2001.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 2001.
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 12 June 2001.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01991 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reasons for his separation be changed and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow his entry into the United States Army. He was issued an RE code of “2B.” On 4 November 1996, the Air Force Discharge...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03339 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 100.06 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable; the reason for her discharge be changed from Misconduct-Drug Abuse to Convenience of the Government; and her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01673
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01673 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1996-02954-2
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see Exhibit E. On 1 May 2003, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, contending that his discharge was unfair and that he did not commit fraud against the government. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03406
On 14 February 2001, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge with an entry-level separation for a condition that interferes with military service, specifically, for a mental disorder. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant’s records document an unsuiting adjustment disorder and a history of mood disorder, possibly bipolar disorder existing prior to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00973 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist in the Army. h. On 4 Jan 96, the applicant failed to complete Volume IV of his CDC's on time and received a letter of reprimand on 7 Feb 96. i. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that airmen are given entry- level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the applicant's discharge and the reenlistment code he received...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03812
For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 9 February 2001. For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 14 February 2001. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we note that in the 11 months and 2 days that the applicant was on active duty, he received 2 LOCs, 4 LORs, and an Article 15.