RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01738
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to
general.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge is in error due to his untreated alcoholism and drug abuse.
Applicant provided no supporting documentation. The applicant’s submission
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic (E-1) on 4 February 1986. He was progressively promoted to the grade
of airman first class. During his enlistment he received one Airman
Performance Report for the period 4 February 1985 – 3 February 1986 with an
overall evaluation of eight (8).
The applicant’s discharge case reveals that he was discharged under other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) on 8 May 1986 under the provisions of AFR
39-10, Chapter 4, Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. He had
served 1 year, 3 months and 5 days on active duty.
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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
Additionally, the applicant has not provided any new evidence or identified
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 June 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 careful consideration of the
applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no
evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service.
Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which
would lead us to believe the actions taken to effect his discharge were
improper, that his request for separation was involuntarily submitted, or
that the information in his discharge case file is erroneous. Furthermore,
the applicant has provided no evidence to warrant consideration of a
request for clemency. In the absence of such evidence, his request is not
favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-01738 in Executive Session on 16 October 2002, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Albert F Lowas, Jr, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Ms. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 June 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 June 2002.
ALBERT F. LOWAS JR
Panel Chair
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...
He received an LOR on 7 Apr 82 for failing to report for duty on 3 April 82. On 17 May 83, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02030
On 25 March 2002, the applicant's commander notified him that he was being discharged for mental disorders, specifically a personality disorder. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE indicates that based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the...
--He received a letter of counseling on 10 Jan 77 for not reporting for duty. 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 or general. We note the applicant received three Article 15s, several LORs and counseling sessions, and substance abuse rehabilitation to no avail.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00718
He indicates he completed his term in the Air Force prior to being incarcerated for 17 years; therefore, receiving no veteran benefits, especially medical assistance with his stroke, is an injustice. On 10 June 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate indicated he concurred with the board’s recommendation and recommended to the discharge authority that the findings of the ADB be approved as well as the applicant’s discharge with an under other than honorable conditions characterization,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01902
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge separation and reenlistment code should be changed. 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 that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03667
Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00224
Additionally, he provided character statements, but no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. On 31 October 2002, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within fourteen (14) days. Exhibit B.
After careful consideration of applicant's requests and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03763
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to...