Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9102260
Original file (9102260.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                           ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  91-02260

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE

On 31 May 1985, the Board considered and denied the applicant's request  for
an upgrade of his discharge.  A complete copy of the Record  of  Proceedings
is attached at Exhibit F.

On 25 September  2000,  applicant  submitted  additional  documentation  and
requested reconsideration.  (Exhibit G).   On   26  October  2000,  a  post-
service letter was sent to the applicant asking him  to  provide  additional
information  pertaining  to  his  activities  since  leaving  the   service.
(Exhibit H)

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on the basis  of  the  data  furnished  they  were
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the  previous
documentation and noting the additional documentation  submitted,  we  again
are not convinced that the applicant’s request should be granted.   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.   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, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  again  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

DECISION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice;  that  the  applicant
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 28 March 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit G. ROP, dated 18 July 1994 w/atchs.
      Exhibit H. Applicant's letter, dated 19 September 1994,
                       w/atchs.
      Exhibit I. FBI Report.




                             DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1994-02615A

    Original file (BC-1994-02615A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1994-02615 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed. By application, dated 9 Dec 03, the applicant again requests his RE code be changed so that he may be allowed to reenlist. Therefore, the majority of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9603401

    Original file (9603401.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 1 December 1997, the State of Department of Veterans Affairs, provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of the applicant’s request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 25 June 1997, the State of of Veterans Affairs, requested reconsideration request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). ' Examiner's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9603404A

    Original file (9603404A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the Record of Proceeding is attached at Exhibit C. In support of his request for reconsideration, applicant provided a letter with attachments detailing his post-service activities (Exhibit D). _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 1 October 1952, he was honorably discharged and furnished a Honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00861

    Original file (BC-2004-00861.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the information and evidence provided, they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). Although the applicant has presented documented evidence of post- service activities and accomplishments, the Board majority believes that based on the severity of the drug abuse and the drug of choice (LSD), they find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. Therefore, it is my decision that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02336A

    Original file (BC-1996-02336A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant submitted a statement and additional character reference statements which are attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to general. _______________________________________________________________________ _____________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9602336A

    Original file (9602336A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant submitted a statement and additional character reference statements which are attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to general. _______________________________________________________________________ _____________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9701581

    Original file (9701581.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9701581A

    Original file (9701581A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01581A

    Original file (BC-1997-01581A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9803056

    Original file (9803056.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 5 Sep 9 7 , the applicant provided documentation relating to her post-service activities and requested the Board reconsider her application (see Exhibit F). After reviewing the statements and accomplishments pertaining to her post-service conduct, and noting that she was issued an honorable discharge, we believe her RE code should be changed to \\RE 3A" in order that she may apply for enlistment in the Air Force Reserves. The following documentary evidence was considered: AFBCMR...