Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200805
Original file (0200805.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00805
            INDEX CODE 110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to appeal for an upgrade to his  discharge.   He  was  a
good member of the Air Force until he was shipped overseas,  receiving
numerous overall 9 Airman Performance Reports (APRs).  Once he was  in
Holland, he fell into drugs and alcohol addiction that resulted in his
discharge.  Being a  Vietnam  Era  vet  and  assuming  the  Board  are
veterans, it would mean a great deal to him be able to frame and  hang
an Honorable Discharge on his wall.  He begs the Board  to  please  do
that for him.

In support of his application, the applicant submits his DD  Form  214
and a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
15 May 1973 for a term of 4 years.  The  applicant  was  involuntarily
discharged under the provision of AFM  39-12  (unsuitability,  apathy,
defective attitude, inability to expend effort constructively)  and  a
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge  on  11  May
1976.  He served 2 years, 11 months, and 17 days active service.

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.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  The commander notified the  member  on
12 Mar 76 that he was being discharged for frequent involvement  of  a
discreditable nature with military authorities. The applicant did  not
submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.   He  provided  no  other  facts
warranting a change in his discharge.  Accordingly, DPPRS  recommended
his records remain the same and his request be  denied.   He  did  not
file a timely request.

AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 12 April 2002, for review and comment within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  We find
no impropriety in the characterization of the  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  the  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.  The only  other  basis  upon  which  to  upgrade  this
discharge would be based on clemency.  However, the  applicant  failed
to provide documentation pertaining to  his  post-service  activities.
Should he provide documentary evidence pertaining to his  post-service
activities, we would be willing to  reconsider  his  appeal.   In  the
absence of such evidence, favorable action is not recommended.

_________________________________________________________________



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 Docket  Number  02-00805
in Executive Session on 13 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Apr 02.




      JOHN L. ROBUCK
      Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200210

    Original file (0200210.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged on 14 Apr 70. 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. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200547

    Original file (0200547.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPRRP states that the applicant, a prior service master...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200353

    Original file (0200353.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0201328

    Original file (0201328.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of the applicant’s discharge from active duty. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant has not provided any new evidence of error or injustice. The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and, absent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201341

    Original file (0201341.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0200187

    Original file (0200187.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01417

    Original file (BC-2003-01417.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01417 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01232

    Original file (BC-2004-01232.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01232 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd 11 May 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 14 May 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101768

    Original file (0101768.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 May 54, he received an undesirable discharge from the Air Force. By letter dated 27 August 2001, it was requested that the applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (Exhibit G). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00724

    Original file (BC-2003-00724.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 January 1989, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge and change of reason for separation. After a thorough review of the documentation provided in support of his appeal and the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the discharge was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives. ...