RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00210
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The applicant makes no contentions. In support of his request he provided
a copy of his DD Fm 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty. His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Jan 67. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant, having assumed that grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 69. On 25 Feb 70, he was
notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged
from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-15a. The
specific reasons for his action was that on 6 Oct 69 he was arrested and
charged with disorderly conduct, he received punishment under Article 15 on
6 Jan 70 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, in which he
received a suspended reduction in grade, ordered to forfeit $50 per month
for two months, and 60 days restriction. On 12 Feb 70, his sentence was
vacated and he was reduced to the grade of airman first class effective and
with a date of rank of 7 Jan 70. He acknowledged receipt of the
notification on that same date.
After consulting counsel, applicant elected to not waive his right to an
administrative discharge board and submitted a statement on his own behalf.
On 3 Mar 70, an administrative discharge board convened and recommended
that he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge, without
probation and rehabilitation. In a legal review of his case the wing staff
judge advocate found the case legally sufficient. The applicant was
discharged on 14 Apr 70. He served 3 years, 2 months, and 25 days on
active duty.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant (see
Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPPRS
states that he did not provide any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Additionally, he
provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. The DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Mar
02 for review and comment within 30 days, and a copy of the FBI
investigative report was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Apr 02 for review
and comment within 14 days. As of this date, this office has received no
response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. We find no evidence of error in this
case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not
believe he has suffered from an injustice. Therefore, we agree with the
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of 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 Docket Number 02-00210 in
Executive Session on 14 May 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas L. Topolski, Jr., Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 02.
Exhibit E. FBI Investigative Report, dated 3 Apr 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 02.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
On 12 Apr 78, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied an appeal from the applicant to upgrade his discharge. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates in his response that the Air Force evaluation contained an error,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02655
On 13 Aug 70, the base commander recommended approval of an undesirable discharge. On 18 Aug 70, the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” On 24 Aug 70, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as other than honorable. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00837
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided additional evidence as to why the character of his discharge should be upgraded. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam and served eight months in Vietnam before the first AWOL. It has been 24 years since he was discharged.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00056
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00056 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 May 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01015
On 11 Jul 77, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his UOTHC discharge. The applicant has provided no persuasive evidence showing the actions taken against him were based on factors other than his own misconduct or that his discharge was unjust, improper, or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00030
On 17 April 1972, the applicant’s commander forwarded the request to the group commander, recommending approval of the applicant’s request for discharge. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 17 days on active duty. The applicant has provided no evidence indicating the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.
The available 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. Based on the activities reflected in the FBI report, we also find no compelling reason to warrant upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. FBI Report.
On 9 Jan 84, he was again denied the AFGCM. He was reduced to the grade of airman with a date of rank (DOR) of 12 Aug 83. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00141
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00141 INDEX CODES: 108.00, 121.02, 123.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he is entitled to payment for lost time from 24 Nov 70 to 4 Feb 71 and six (6) days of forfeited accrued leave. ...