RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02095
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Allegations were made against him by drug conspirators so they could
alleviate or lighten their sentence. There was no rhyme or reason for the
allegations. He willfully separated from the Air Force because it didn’t
make sense to go through court proceedings to prove his innocence. He was
a model airman, never in trouble and it seemed that the Air Force didn’t
take this into account. The Air Force took the word of these individuals
as fact. He was humiliated and it was best for him to terminate his
relationship with the Air Force.
He was a young man and hasn’t forgotten this time in his life. It is
important to him that he set the record straight and to reestablish his
honor. This incident has been hanging over him ever since and he would
appreciate a correction if at all possible.
The applicant provides no supporting documents. The applicant’s
application is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 11 September 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
During this period of service, he was progressively promoted to the grade
of airman first class (E-3).
On 15 June 1981, the applicant requested discharge under AFM 39-12,
paragraph 2-78 for the good of the service. The reason for the request,
was that the member was facing a court-martial based on charges of wrongful
use of marijuana on divers occasions between 1 May and 30 June 1980;
wrongful possession of marijuana on divers occasions from 1 May to 30 June
1980 and 1 September to 30 November 1980; wrongful solicitation of other
airmen to wrongfully transfer marijuana during the month of September 1980;
and wrongful possession of LSD between 25 November and 5 December 1980.
Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-
12 (Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service) and received an
under other than honorable conditions discharge. He had served 2 years, 5
months and 2 days of total active military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in his discharge process. Based upon the documentation in
his records, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation (see
Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
August 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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. Should the applicant provide expansive evidence of
his post-service activities that would indicate to us he is now a
successful and productive member of his community, we would be willing to
reconsider his petition. 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 01-03486 in Executive Session on 2 October 2002, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 July 2002.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 July 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 August 2002.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01140
The applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board, chose not to submit a statement in his own behalf, and requested not to be considered for the probation and rehabilitation (P&R) program. The discharge authority approved the discharge on 18 March 1974 and ordered an undesirable characterization without P&R. While we note the applicant’s assertion that he has not been in any trouble since his separation, the seriousness of the offenses for which the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01987
As a result of being found guilty, the applicant was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for five months, forfeiture of $275 per month for five months, and reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1). The applicant did not provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge, nor did he submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03358
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03358 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03027
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03027 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: MICHAEL VITERNA HEARING DESIRED: “UNSURE” MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 APRIL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The evaluation officer stated the applicant should be furnished a general discharge and should not be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02990
On 18 August 1981, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following: he did, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on or about 29 March 1981, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-4, Air Force Regulation 30- 2, dated 8 November 1976, by wrongfully transferring some amphetamines to an airman, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00651 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. DPPRS stated that the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02676
He received another Article 15 on 18 June 1971 for failure to report for duty on 15 June and 16 June 1971. On 15 September 1971, he was notified by the unit commander that administrative discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A, Paragraph 2-4b, because he had been diagnosed as possessing a character and behavior disorder of “passive-aggressive personality - severe.” He consulted with military counsel and submitted a statement...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04052
Specification 3: He did, on or about 13 December 1955, without proper authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the office of the Commander. He did not seem to be able to adjust to the Air Force, his job or the men for whom he worked. On 2 December 1958, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.
Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available. They also stated that the applicant did not provide evidence of error in his discharge case and that since the discharge occurred over 20 years ago, and considering the misconduct that led to his UOTHC discharge, they recommend clemency. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03599
On 12 March 1974, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing marijuana on 27 February 1974. The AFPC/DPPRS 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 20 December 2002 for review and response...