RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03685
COUNSEL: VFW
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable
conditions).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is sorry for what he did and he knows it was wrong. But at the
time, he thought he was doing a good thing because he was using the
radios to help search the desert for lost people. If he could redo
it, he would never have done it and he has regretted it ever since.
If the Board would look at his medical records, the Board will see
that he had problems with his right leg and he would have like to be
able to get some help to get it taken care of to make a life for
himself.
In support of his application, he submits copies of his DD Form 214,
letters of support and a record check from the local police.
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
14 Nov 80. He was discharged from the Air Force on 10 Aug 83 with
a bad conduct discharge (BCD) by court-martial. He served 2 years, 5
months and 22 days of total active duty service.
On 8 Dec 82, applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for
wrongful appropriation of six radios valued at more than $100,
property of the U.S. Government. He was sentenced to a BCD,
confinement at hard labor for 4 months, forfeiture of $100 per month
for 6 months and reduced to the grade of E-1. Appellate review upheld
the conviction and the sentence was executed 22 Jun 83. He had lost
time from 18 Nov 82 to 23 Feb 83.
The FBI provided a copy of an Investigative Report pertaining to the
applicant, which is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and 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 discharge was within the discretion of the discharge
authority. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.
Accordingly, AFPC/DPPRS recommends his records remain the same and his
request be denied. He has not filed a timely request.
AFLS/JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 20 Dec 02, for review and comment. 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, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse that failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. We find no improperiety in
the characterization of applicant's discharge. It appears that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the
separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the
rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. We conclude,
therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing
circumstances.
4. Although the applicant has provided some statements concerning
post-service conduct, the Board finds these statements insufficient to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency. Should
he provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances
attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of
successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider
this case based on the new evidence. We cannot, however, recommend
approval based on the current evidence of record.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of a 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 02-03685
in Executive Session on 25 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 11 Feb 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 13 Dec 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00509
DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Mar 06 for review and comment within 30 days and on 17 Apr 2006, he was forwarded a copy of the FBI report. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03841
He received records of counseling on six occasions (11 Aug 82, 5 and 6 Jan 83, 4 May 83, and 10 and 11 May 83) for failure to meet AFR 39-6 Responsibilities. After reviewing the evidence of record, the applicant’s overall quality of service and the events which precipitated his separation from the Air Force, we find no evidence to indicate that either the assigned separation code or the RE code are in error or unjust. ___________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03391
On 11 Feb 83, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for wrongful possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. After consulting counsel, applicant requested a hearing before an administrative discharge board and elected to submit statements on his own behalf. The board recommended that he be discharged because of misconduct with an under other that honorable conditions discharge and that he not be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03875
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 03875 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUNE 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00071
On 11 Mar 82, the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 29 Jan 81 through 28 Jan 82, was referred to the applicant. Time lost for the following periods: 28-31 Oct 81, 15-16 Dec 81, 29 Jan- 1 Feb 82, 16-21 Feb 82, and 20 May 82-23 Sep 82. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jan 05 for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03317
On 12 Jan 83, applicant’s squadron commander recommended his request for discharge be approved and recommended a general discharge. On 8 May 83, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 22 Oct 85, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03896
On 28 Jul 83, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s unconditional waiver be accepted and that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 5 Aug 83, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for a pattern of misconduct - discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities, with an under other than...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00205
A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation pertaining to the applicant’s PRP permanent decertification, the discharge action would have...
Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.