RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01716
INDEX CODE 106.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1981 general 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:
The applicant’s records (Exhibit B) reflect several incidents of
misconduct. He was ultimately discharged in the grade of airman basic
on 14 Jan 1981 for unsuitability, failure in alcohol rehabilitation
program, with a general discharge. He had 7 months and 17 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 provides 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 of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 14 Jun 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. In this
regard, he has not established that his discharge was inappropriate,
unduly harsh or beyond the commander’s authority. Further, he has
provided no evidence that he has rehabilitated himself or become a
productive member of society since his discharge. 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 19 September 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01716 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
EDWARD C. KOENIG III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02695
On 21 July 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for being late for duty. He received an RE code of 2B, “Separated with a General or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge.” __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial based on the applicant not submitting any new evidence nor identifying any errors or injustices that occurred during his discharge. After careful review of...
DPPRS further states that the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that may have occurred during his discharge processing. The applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to warrant upgrading his discharge. DPPRS recommends denying the applicant's request.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable on 8 January 1997 (Exhibit B). DPPRS further states that the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that may have occurred during his discharge processing. The applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to warrant upgrading his discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03097
Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 29 Nov 85. He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After reviewing the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, we believe the evidence of record supports his discharge for misconduct.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03097
Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 29 Nov 85. He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After reviewing the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, we believe the evidence of record supports his discharge for misconduct.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01540
In support of his application, applicant has provided a personal statement that is at Exhibit A. The applicant received an honorable discharge on 8 May 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder). Exhibit B.
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the applicant was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with 2 Bronze Service Stars. They advise that the AFEM was only awarded for service in Vietnam during the period 1 Jul 58-3 Jul 65. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP notes the applicant contends she was not time-in-grade (TIG) eligible to receive senior rater indorsement based on her date of rank (DOR). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that Section IX of the 24 Oct 01 EPR should reflect she was not TIG- eligible for a senior rater indorsement. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03363
The commander also recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge. On 30 Jun 87, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the Installation Commander that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated in his response to the Air Force evaluation...