Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201341
Original file (0201341.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01341
            INDEX CODE 110.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1984 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he was stationed at Rhein-Main AB, Germany, he was  involved  in
helping to identify and process the 241 Marines killed in the  suicide
bombing in Beirut, Lebanon.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jun 81  and  was
assigned to McChord AFB, WA as a unit  apprentice  aircraft  mechanic.
During the period in question, he was an airman  first  class  serving
with the 435th Field Maintenance Squadron at Rhein-Main AB, Germany as
a unit flight  line  support  equipment  apprentice.  His  performance
reports from 17 Jun 81 through 18 Nov 83 reflect overall ratings of 9,
7 and 7.

On 12 Aug 83 he was administered an Article 15 for being  derelict  in
the performance of his duties on 1 Aug 83, i.e., he failed to secure a
pintle hook to tow a diesel generator and  failed  to  disconnect  the
generator power cord from the aircraft before the generator was towed.
He made an oral, but not a written, presentation. He was fined $100.00
in pay and received a suspended reduction to airman until 6 Feb 84.

On 3 Nov 83, he was denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal AFGCM.

On 4 Jan 84 he was placed on the Control Roster  for  the  12  Aug  83
Article 15 and for receiving a  performance  report  with  an  overall
rating of 7.

On 9 Jan 84, he was again denied the AFGCM.

On 24  Jan  84,  the  suspended  reduction  was  vacated  because  the
applicant drove an automobile without a current operator’s license  on
23 Dec 83. He was reduced to the grade of airman with a date  of  rank
(DOR) of 12 Aug 83.  That same day, he  received  an  Article  15  for
failing to go to his appointed place of duty  on  16 Jan  84.  He  was
found asleep in his dorm room. He was reduced to the grade  of  airman
basic with a DOR of 24 Jan 84 and fined $100.00 in pay.

On 21 Feb 84, the squadron section commander  notified  the  applicant
that  he  was  being  recommended  for  discharge   with   a   general
characterization for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant waived his
right to counsel and to submit statements. The commander  subsequently
recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  without   probation   and
rehabilitation with a general characterization. Legal review on 1  Mar
84 found the case legally sufficient.  On 5 Mar 84, the wing commander
ordered the applicant’s general discharge.

The applicant was separated in  the  grade  of  airman  basic  with  a
general discharge on 3 Mar 84 with 2 years, 8 months and  27  days  of
active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  believes  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and
they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the 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 31 May 02 for review and comment within 30 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 error or injustice.  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.  The
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.  In
this regard, the applicant has not shown that his discharge should  be
upgraded  on  the  basis  of  error,   undue   harshness,   mitigating
circumstances or clemency. 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.  Therefore,  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 3 September 2002 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01341 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 02.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00289

    Original file (FD2006-00289.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The misconduct included being late for duty, failure to obey a regulation, failure to complete Department of Defense Practical Evaluations, striking two senior airmen in the face, and making terroristic threats. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AMN) (HGH A1C) 1. You received a Letter of Counseling on 20 Feb 02. d. On or about 16 Feb 02, you were late for duty.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01991

    Original file (BC-2005-01991.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01991 INDEX CODE: 106.00, 100.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 81150 rather than 81130, and his 1985 discharge be upgraded from general to honorable. According to his Enlisted...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101270

    Original file (0101270.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0201141

    Original file (0201141.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded, indicating that nothing can change the facts or the past. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00060

    Original file (FD2005-00060.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    TO: SAFMRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742 FROM: SECRETARY OF TIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAhTl DR. EE WING, 3 R D FEOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE Rl3VIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER m-2005-00060 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002961

    Original file (0002961.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Jul 84, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $50 a month for two months, and 30 days correctional custody but the execution of the portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman first class was suspended until 5 Jan 85. The reasons for the commander’s action were the incidents of misconduct for which he received the Article 15...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101763

    Original file (0101763.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ANG/DPFP indicates that neither the military personnel flight (MPF) nor the state headquarters was able to provide documentation substantiating the applicant's claim for the AFAM. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant withdrew his requests for the AFGCM and the AFAM, and acknowledges the administrative...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00081

    Original file (FD2005-00081.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD ITI*L)[ GEN I I PERSONAL APPEARANCE . Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF ,THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AlC) (HGH SRA) MISSING SOME DISCHARGE DOCUMENTS 1. Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this recommendation are attached.

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00308

    Original file (FD2005-00308.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    FIRST MIDD1.E Ib1lTIAL) AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I GRADE ( AFSN/SSAN TYPE GEN 'OUNSEL ' PERSONAL APPEARANCE NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZ4TlON RECORD REVIEW X ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIWTION OF COUNSEL I YES Na X I I MEMBER SITTING I VOTE OF THE BOARD HON GEN I UOTHC 1 OTHER I DENY ISSUES A94.05 INDEX NUMBER A67.90 1 ORDER APPOINTMG THE BOARD I 1 2 1 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 1 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE...

  • AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2002-0423

    Original file (FD2002-0423.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PLACE R h e i n - M a i n A i r B a s e , G E c. DATE 2 7 A u g u s t 1 9 8 7 I Referred for trial to the s p e c i a l t h i s h e a d a u a r t e r s d a t e d 24 August court-martial convened by S p e c i a l Order AA-17 19 . The 435 discharge. SSg d USAF Rhei n-Mai n C l i n i c/CC both recommend a UOTHC has received two APRs d u r i n g her c u r r e n t en1 i s t m e n t UNIT ED STATES AIR FORCE SEPTEMBER 18,1947 Right People.