Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201955
Original file (0201955.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01955

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he served in the Air Force at a very young age, he  was  involved
in a relationship while he was married.  He was  very  young  and  not
knowledgeable  of  life  at  that  particular  age.   He   experienced
relationship problems that affected his duty as an airman serving  the
Air  Force.   He  would  appreciate  consideration  of  upgrading  his
discharge.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a  personal  statement
and DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or  Dismissal
From the Armed Forces of the United States.

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
28 October 1983.  The commander recommended  applicant  be  discharged
under the provisions of AFR  39-10  (misconduct  -  pattern  of  minor
disciplinary infractions) with service characterized  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge on     10 December 1985 in the grade of
airman.  He served 2 years, 1  month  and  20  days  of  total  active
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   That  office  indicates  that   the
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings.   Additionally,
the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge
he received.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommend his records remain the same
and his request be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 5 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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable 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.   The
applicant has not established by his submission that the discharge was
not consistent with procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulations or that it was not within the  sound  discretion
of  the  discharge  authority.   We  agree  with  the   opinions   and
recommendations of the Air Force and  adopt  their  rationale  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, in absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 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  02-01955
in Executive Session on 3 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Ms Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Jul 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 02.






      WAYNE R. GRACIE
      Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202324

    Original file (0202324.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02324 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating he suffered either an error or an injustice and we conclude that no basis exist to recommend favorable action on his request. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202274

    Original file (0202274.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged with an entry-level separation with character of service listed as uncharacterized on 21 August 1997 in the grade of airman first class. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Aug 02. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201970

    Original file (0201970.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged with a general characterization of service on 5 May 72 in the grade of airman. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201613

    Original file (0201613.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s contention is at odds with the facts provided by his record. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01029

    Original file (BC-2002-01029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01029 INDEX CODE: A50.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to general. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was discharged for unfitness. Exhibit F. Letter, applicant, dated 13 Jul 02, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000152

    Original file (0000152.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The recommendation for discharge for misconduct was approved and the commander directed that applicant be given an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. On 23 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10 (Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) in the grade of airman first class with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge and an RE code of 2B (Separated with other than an honorable discharge). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03060

    Original file (BC-2002-03060.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that the applicant’s personnel records did not include any information as to why he received a general discharge versus an honorable discharge. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-03060 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03060

    Original file (BC-2002-03060.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that the applicant’s personnel records did not include any information as to why he received a general discharge versus an honorable discharge. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-03060 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-06-02466

    Original file (BC-06-02466.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02466 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 FEB 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and the narrative reason for separation be changed. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01297

    Original file (BC-2007-01297.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, they did find based upon the record, applicant’s testimony, evidence provided by the applicant, that his reason for discharge was inequitable and directed his reason for separation be changed to “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” They further concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full...