RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02794
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
It has become necessary for him to have his discharge changed due to
furthering his education in the field of nursing. He has paid his dues and
has accepted that his actions, at the time of his discharge, were
inappropriate and wrong. He has grown up and would like the opportunity to
help someone else not to make the same mistakes.
In support of his request, he submits a copy of an acceptance letter to the
School or Nursing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 April 1981, 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 5 April 1982, he was discharged under the
provision of AFM 39-12 (Personal Abuse of Drugs - Other Than Alcohol). On
31 October 1984, by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, all
references to his being discharged were removed and he was restored to
active duty.
On 17 July 1985, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for four years.
During this period of service, he was progressively promoted to the grade
of sergeant (E-5).
On 22 June 1987, the applicant requested discharge under AFR 39-10,
paragraph 5-46 for misconduct based on minor disciplinary infractions. The
reason for the request was that on 22 June 1987, the member waived his
right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board with the
understanding that he would receive no less than a general discharge. He
was charged with wrongful use of marijuana on divers occasions on or about
18 February 1987 to 19 March 1987 and on or about 31 May 1986, operating a
vehicle while drunk at Chanute Air Force Base, IL. Subsequently, the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 paragraph 5-46,
for misconduct based on minor disciplinary infractions and received a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He had served 2 years, 7
months and 26 days of active duty on this enlistment.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that the
applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. Based
upon the documentation on file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
The DPPRS 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 4
October 2002, for review and response. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
The applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the
actions taken to effect his discharge were improper, or that the
information in his discharge case file is erroneous. In the absence of
more expansive evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-
service adjustment in the years after his discharge, we are not inclined to
extend clemency at this time. However, should the applicant continue in his
efforts to become a productive and successful member of society, and to
exhibit the qualities associated with good citizenship, he may, of course,
submit a request for clemency at a later 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 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 19 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Sep 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 02.
ROSCOE HINTON JR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03926
On 16 January 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending applicant for a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and recommended a general discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant’s requests his Reenlistment Eligibility code 2B “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge” be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserve. ...
He received an RE Code of 2B, which defined means "Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with a general discharge or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.” Applicant's discharge case file is not in his military personnel records; therefore, the facts surrounding his separation from the Air Force cannot be verified. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03096
He had served 8 years, 7 months, and 26 days on active duty. DPPRS states that based on the offense and the fact that it occurred more than 42 years ago, they recommend his discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general), if his FBI files prove negative. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2002-03096 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03096
He had served 8 years, 7 months, and 26 days on active duty. DPPRS states that based on the offense and the fact that it occurred more than 42 years ago, they recommend his discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general), if his FBI files prove negative. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2002-03096 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01387
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 30 March 1956 under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s upgrade request to reenlist on 20 March 1959. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
On 28 May 1993, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. On 28 November 1995, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied his request for a discharge upgrade. While it is true that the applicant had compiled an outstanding service record prior to the events that led to his separation, we believe his wrongful use of marijuana...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00556
On 7 September 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge because of his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. His commander appointed an evaluation officer who interviewed the applicant and reviewed his records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file the discharge was consistent with...
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that when he enlisted in the Air Force he didn’t have to go to BMT and would be put in an on-the-job training status in supply. The applicant has provided no evidence showing the information in his discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03513
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03513 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reason for his discharge be changed from AFR 39-16 (unsuitability) to reflect that he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-14 (convenience of the government). ...