RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01306
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The applicant provided no comments.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a DD Form 293
(Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed
Forces of the United States) and two letters of recommendation from
his current place of employment (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 17 Oct
80 for a period of four years.
On 18 Nov 82, the applicant received notification that he was being
recommended for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions. He
received a general discharge on 15 Dec 82 under the provisions of AFR
39-10 (misconduct - pattern of minor disciplinary infractions). He
had completed a total of 2 years, 1 month and 29 days and was serving
in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, 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.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 3 Aug 01, that, on the basis of data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, indicated that the applicant
had accumulated 3 Letters of Indebtedness, 2 Letters of Reprimand, 3
Records of Counseling and 1 Article 15, with a punishment consisting
of a $50 fine, 20 days of extra duty and a suspended reduction in
grade to airman, which was subsequently vacated. DPPRS stated that,
based upon the documentation in the file, applicant’s discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation and that the discharge was within the sound
discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit
any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in
the discharge processing. DPPRS therefore recommended the applicant’s
request be denied. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 29
Jun 01 for review and response. 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. We thoroughly reviewed
applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the
discharge and we find the evidence of record supports his discharge
for misconduct (pattern of minor disciplinary infractions).
Furthermore, we found no evidence that responsible officials applied
inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge, that
pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or that the applicant
was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of
discharge. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence that
the applicant’s substantial rights were violated, that the information
contained in the discharge case file was erroneous, or that his
superiors abused their discretionary authority, we are not inclined to
favorably consider his request for upgrade of his discharge.
4. We have noted the information provided by the applicant pertaining
to his post-service activities and do not find it sufficient to
warrant upgrading his discharge based on clemency. Our finding in
this regard is based on the limited scope of the information provided
and the multiplicity of the infractions the applicant committed
against the good order and discipline 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 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 29 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Jun 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun 01.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01498
He received an Honorable Discharge certificate after each period of service and should have been issued a DD Form 214. 'From' date is the date of initial entry into active duty, or the first day of service for which a DD Form 214 was not previously issued; the 'To' date is the date before the current enlistment." _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00600
On 16 August 2001, the applicant submitted a similar appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 21 November 2002, the AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.
The recommendation for discharge for misconduct was approved and the commander directed that applicant be given an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. On 23 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10 (Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) in the grade of airman first class with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge and an RE code of 2B (Separated with other than an honorable discharge). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS,...
The Medical Consultant states that his records indicate that he had a pattern of recurring misconduct which interfered with his military duties and resulted in his discharge. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Apr 02 for review and comment within 30 days. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Apr 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01862
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The decision by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to deny his request to upgrade his discharge to honorable was unjust. A legal review of the discharge case file by the staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00945 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: None xxx-xx-xxxx HEARING DESIRED: Yes ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Block 29 of his DD Form 214, “Dates of Time Lost During This Period,” be corrected to reflect “None.” His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. They recommend that his DD Form 214 be corrected...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00164
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00164 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 Jul 07 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. He did not submit evidence or identify any errors in his discharge processing and provided no facts warranting a change to his RE...
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.