RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02300
INDEX CODE 110.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1978 under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to general.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He took any discharge they would give him at the time. His wife made
him choose between her and the Air Force and he made a big mistake
going with his wife. Now he regrets it and wants to be able to use
the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted at age 18 in the Regular Air Force on 31 Oct
72. He served as a carpenter first with the 22nd Civil Engineering
Squadron at March AFB, CA and then with the 52nd Civil Engineering
Squadron at Spangdahlem AB, Germany. He was ultimately promoted to
sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug 75.
His performance reports from 31 Oct 72 through 31 Oct 77 reflect
overall ratings of: 8, 8, 6, 7 (Referral), 5 (Referral), and 2
(Commander Directed).
The applicant’s records contain numerous episodes of misconduct and
frequent counseling sessions. Some of the more significant incidents
are:
--On 8 Jul 75, he was counseled regarding misuse of his Air
Force ID card (as collateral for a $20.00 loan).
--He received a letter of counseling on 10 Jan 77 for not
reporting for duty.
--He received an Article 15 on 17 Feb 77 for willfully
disobeying a lawful order to report to duty. Punishment was forfeiture
of $25.00, 14 days of extra duty and a suspended reduction to airman
first class (A1C) until 17 Aug 77. The applicant did not appeal.
--He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 8 Mar 77 for
reckless driving on 5 Oct 76.
--On 13 May 77 he was placed on the control roster for 90 days
because of a referral performance report.
--On 3 Aug 77, military police were called to the applicant’s
residence where he had beaten his wife and allegedly kicked his three-
year-old son down the residence’s front stairs. He was continued on
the control roster for an additional 90 days. On 26 Aug 77, he was
confirmed to be an amphetamines user and was entered into a substance
abuse rehabilitation program.
--On 26 Oct 77, the applicant received an Article 15 for
striking at an enlisted member with his hand and striking his wife
with his fist on 3 Aug 77. He was reduced to airman first class and
forfeited $75.00 per month for two months. He did not appeal.
--He received another LOR on 27 Sep 77 for failing to maintain
his dorm room.
--On 22 Nov 77, he received a third Article 15 for failing to go
to his appointed place of duty on 31 Oct 77 and for striking an airman
in the face with his fist on 11 Nov 77. Punishment was reduction to
airman basic. The applicant did not appeal.
On 5 Dec 77, the commander recommended the applicant be
administratively discharged with a UOTHC characterization. The
applicant waived his right to a board hearing and did not submit
statements in his behalf. The case was found legally sufficient. On
12 Jan 78, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s UOTHC
discharge.
The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic on 30 Jan 78
with a UOTHC characterization. He had 5 years and 3 months of active
service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant contends he was young and had problems with his wife.
She gave him an ultimatum and went back to Texas, leaving him feeling
bitter and lost. Drinking and Valium became a way of life. He made a
mistake and asks the Board to understand his loneliness and confusion.
His first four years of active duty were honorable and he thinks a
general discharge for that portion of his service is fair. He’s sorry
he let his country down.
A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general.
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. We
note the applicant received three Article 15s, several LORs and
counseling sessions, and substance abuse rehabilitation to no avail.
He has not shown that his repeated misconduct over his short period of
service warrants an upgraded 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 not sustained 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 21 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02300 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
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-2002-03763
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03431
A Report of Individual Counseling dated 6 Nov 87 indicated the applicant had been advised he was being considered for discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. On 8 Feb 88, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS provide their rationale for recommend denial.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02379
On 13 Apr 72, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing, and provided no facts warranting upgrade of his discharge. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air...
On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2001-03419
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03419 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation code of KBK on his DD Form 214 and reflected in the personnel system be changed to MBK _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After his separation from active duty on 28 January 2001, he...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01104
On 23 Jul 02, she was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend an entry-level separation (ELS) from the Air Force. She received an RE code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or ELS without characterization of service). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
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. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...