RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00481
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During his time in the service he had a problem with alcohol. Since his
discharge the problem has been corrected.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 March 1985 in the grade
of airman basic for a period of four years.
On 9 April 1986 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending him for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions
that covered the period of time from 20 August 1985 to 21 March 1986.
Misconduct included two failures to go on 20 August and 10 September 1985;
an Article 15, 7 October 1982, for assault and 30 days in correctional
custody; failure to prepare room for inspection, 22 November 1985; breach
of standards of conduct and alcohol abuse, 7 March 1986; failure to go and
negative attitude, 21 March 1986. The applicant was placed in alcohol
rehabilitation on two separate occasions. Previous efforts at
rehabilitation, including counseling by his supervisors 7 times and Article
15 actions were not successful in improving his conduct and attitude. For
this reason probation and further rehabilitation was not recommended.
On 5 May 1986 the Discharge Authority approved a general discharge.
Applicant was discharged on 9 May 1986, in the grade of airman. He
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the
provisions AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary
Infractions). He served 1 year, 1 month and 11 days total active duty
service.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that they were unable to identify with
arrest record on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit E).
On 24 March 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered
and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general (under
honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge (Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority. The Air Force Discharge
Review Board denied his request for upgrade on 2 May 1988.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts
warranting an upgrade of his discharge
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 22 March 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
On 12 April 2002, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-
service documentation within fourteen (14) days. Applicant’s response,
with attachments, is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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.
4. 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00481
in Executive Session on 20 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 February 2002.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 March 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 March 2002.
Exhibit E. FBI Report.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 April 2002, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 April 2002.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 May 2002.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00586
h. On 15 October 1986, the applicant failed to report for duty at the prescribed time, for which he received written counseling. For this misconduct, the applicant was counseled. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.
He served 6 months and 9 days total active duty service with 11 days lost time. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
The remaining 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 at Exhibit C. On 11 February 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03398
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03398 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before...
Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 May 02. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03325
He further indicates he was advised by counsel to accept the general discharge instead of appearing before a discharge board. In his recommendation for discharge action, the commander indicated he had attempted to rehabilitate the applicant’s conduct through use of counseling and other administrative admonishments concerning the penalty for financial irresponsibility and misconduct. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. On 7 Jan 80, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being in a fight on 10 Dec 79 at Peterson AFB, CO. His APRs reflect superior performance; however, despite drug rehabilitation and an Article 15 for marijuana possession, the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03012 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Although the pathology report of removed tissues were consistent with Crohn’s Disease, medical records between the time of his August 1985 hospital discharge and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03012 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Although the pathology report of removed tissues were consistent with Crohn’s Disease, medical records between the time of his August 1985 hospital discharge and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00912
The commander indicated his reasons for this action were the Article 15 actions and on 28 February 1985 to 22 April 1985, he was counseled numerous times on his bearing, behavior, reporting to duty on time, and AFR 35-10 violations. On 26 March 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate conducted a legal review and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge and he not be afforded an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. They indicated the Air Force Discharge Review Board...