RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02746
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant makes no contentions. His complete application, with
attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
20 August 1979. The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the
provision of AFR 39-12 (unsuitable - apathy, defective attitude) with
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) on 28
October 1981 in the grade of airman. He served 2 years, 2 months and
9 days of active service.
The member was notified on 8 October 1981 by his commander that he was
recommending applicant for a discharge for failure to maintain
prescribed standards of military conduct and his poor attitude.
Specifically, on 7 September 1981, he received punishment under
Article 15 for wrongful possession of marijuana; on 28 August 1981, he
failed to go to his place of duty and received another Article 15; on
28 March 1980, member received a Record of Counseling for exhibiting
poor attitude and unwillingness to apply himself to duties; on 5
January 1980, he received a Letter of Warning because he was present
in a room where other airmen were smoking marijuana, but failed to
report this to the proper authorities or leave the room. Member
consulted with counsel and furnished statements; however, review of
his case file showed he made the same type of statements in response
to previous incidents, but failed to improve his conduct. For this
reason, his superiors did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.
The Discharge Authority approved his discharge and ordered a general
discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. Based on the documentation in the
file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge
authority. 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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 20 September 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 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 his commander abused his
discretionary authority, and since we find no abuse of that authority,
there is no compelling reason to overturn the commander’s decision.
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 02-02746
in Executive Session on 20 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member
Mr. John B Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Sep 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03907
On 4 March 1980, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to report to his duty section at the prescribed time. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03053
On 9 July 1981, he failed to report at the scheduled time to his appointed place of duty, for which he was counseled on 9 July 1981. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 October 2005 for review and response within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03400
DPPRS notes the DRB denial of the applicant’s appeal on 13 March 1986. Applicant's complete statement with attachments is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In this respect, we note that his record of performance prior to the incident which led to his discharge, was excellent.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02432
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02432 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. He was evaluated on 13 August 1975 whereupon the evaluating officer recommended the applicant be discharged immediately and that he be furnished a general...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00992
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00992 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETTION DATE AUGUST 5, 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable; his special court-martial conviction be overturned and removed from his personal records; his narrative reason...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03148
He received a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Discharge of Airmen During Their First Enlistment - Unsuitability). DPPRS notes also that the applicant provided no evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred during discharge processing, nor did the applicant provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Nov 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03148
He received a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Discharge of Airmen During Their First Enlistment - Unsuitability). DPPRS notes also that the applicant provided no evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred during discharge processing, nor did the applicant provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Nov 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02603
On 15 April 1958, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
Therefore, the board recommended he be discharged with a general discharge. On 8 September 1981, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01156
On 26 August 1980, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge. - 6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended 15 May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for failure to go to appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.