RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
INDEX CODE 106.00
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00929
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1983 under-other-than-honorable (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the period in question, the applicant was a percussionist with
the 745th Air Force Band at Barksdale AFB LA. His two performance
reports reflected overall ratings of 7 and 6. The applicant was
discharged on 17 Jun 83 in the grade of airman with a UOTHC
characterization for Misconduct-Drug Abuse. He had 1 year, 11 months
and 10 days of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the applicant's military records (Exhibit B) and in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit
C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy was forwarded to the applicant on 12 Apr 02 for review
and comment within 30 days. The letter was returned and resent on 17
May 02 to the new address indicated on the envelope. However, 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either
an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 22 August 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00929 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 02.
Exhibit D. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Apr and 17 May 02.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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 | 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00973 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist in the Army. h. On 4 Jan 96, the applicant failed to complete Volume IV of his CDC's on time and received a letter of reprimand on 7 Feb 96. i. ...
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that they believe the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02418
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03896
Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 4 Apr 03 for review and response. As a result, he was subsequently separated from the Air Force by reason...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00023
Through no fault of his own, he was discharged for convenience of the government with only 51 days of active duty service. DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The complete DPPRS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03241
On 29 Aug 00, the applicant received notification that she was being recommended for discharge for erroneous enlistment. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the requested relief should be approved.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Since his discharge occurred over 48 years ago and considering he was only 19...