RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02302
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The characterization of his discharge be upgraded from general (under
honorable conditions) to honorable and the narrative reason for
separation and reentry (RE) code be changed to allow him to serve his
country once again.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He appealed his discharge and received the Discharge Review Board’s
findings on 21 Apr 99. He served his country with honor and
integrity. He sincerely believes that the Air Force should have
punished and then retained him.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits character statements,
letters of appreciation and commendations, and a copy of his
performance appraisal.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 May 82 for a period
of 4 years in the grade of airman basic.
On 3 Mar 97, the applicant was charged for violation of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92, because on or about 25
May 96 to 31 Dec 96, he wrongfully used his government issued American
Express (AMEX) Credit Card for personal use and was also charged for
making a false official statement. He consulted his Area Defense
Counsel and on 4 Mar 97, requested discharge in lieu of court-martial.
The Staff Judge Advocate and his commander recommended approval of
the discharge and recommended a UOTHC. The Discharge Authority
ordered the discharge without probation or rehabilitation. The
applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 23 Apr 97 under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(triable by court martial) and received an under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharged in the grade of staff sergeant. He
served 14 years, 11 months and 19 days of total active serve.
Applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to
have his discharge upgraded to honorable. On 21 April 1999, the AFDRB
upgraded his discharge to general, under honorable conditions.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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, we recommend his records
remain the same and the request be denied. He has not filed a timely
request.
AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPAE states that based on the review of the applicant’s records,
the RE Code “2B” is correct. Recommend denial of the applicant’s
request to change his RE Code.
AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is attached Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 18 October 2002, for review and comment within 30 days.
However, 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that his discharge and narrative reason for separation
should be upgraded or changed. Applicant’s contentions and supporting
statements were duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence
of record. 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 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 02-02302
in Executive Session on 15 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Oct 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00438
The following information was obtained from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record. On 17 Nov 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a change to the reason and authority for the discharge. After careful review of the available records and the information contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Record, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00241 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 3A so that he may pursue a career in the U. S. Army. The evidence of records supports the stated reasons for the applicant's ineligibility to reenlist and we are...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00157 INDEX CODE 100.06 110.02 COUNSELS: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1985 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge) be changed so that he can enlist in the Army. ...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01753
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01753 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 DECEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2C” which denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service" to an...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02450
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02450 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code of LBK (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02938
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02938 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. Based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03592
On 28 December 1990, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 35-10, Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, with an honorable discharge. On 28 December 1990 the applicant submitted a conditional waiver to an administrative review board contingent on receiving no less than an honorable discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00369
As of this date, this office has received no response. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02860
The Recommendation Letter and Legal Review could not be found in the available records. As he has provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge, denial is recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we conclude the general discharge was appropriate given the applicant’s misconduct and that the RE code, which was driven by the discharge, is correct.