RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03432
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed
to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While stationed in the Philippines from 1973 through 1974, he was led
into alcoholism by his First Sergeant and others. Applicant feels
that he has paid for his mistake for the past 28 years and that his
discharge should be upgraded.
His submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant' complete military personnel record is not available;
however, based on the available records the following facts are
provided.
He contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 14 April
1971. He was progressively promoted to the grade of Sergeant (Sgt/E-
4) with a date of rank of 1 August 1973. Applicant received three
Airman Performance Reports (APRs) during his tour of duty. The first
two were overall 8’s and the third was an overall 6.
He was declared Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 6 through 8 May 1974.
Applicant was AWOL from 13 May through 11 June 1974 and, as he was
AWOL for more than 30 days, he attained deserter status on 12 June
1974 and was not returned to military control until 24 September 1974.
He was declared a deserter again from 6 through 20 October 1974 and
was confined on 22 October 1974 pending a court martial hearing.
On 8 November 1974, the applicant received notification that he was
being recommended for involuntary discharge due to misconduct. He
received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge on
27 November 1974 under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (Involuntary
discharge, misconduct, AWOL). He had completed 3 years, 2 months and
11 days, not including 153 lost days, and was serving in the grade of
Sgt at the time of discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS notes that while the
information surrounding applicant’s discharge in his personnel record
is limited, there is enough information to substantiate that the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the regulation in effect at the time and that the
separation action was within the discretionary power of the discharge
authority. DPPRS states that the applicant’s request is not timely
and that the applicant did not provide any new evidence nor identify
any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge action.
(Exhibit C)
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant claims that his records have been “…messed with.”; that
his mistakes with alcohol were minor when compared to the mistakes of
“…some of our country’s leaders.”; and that the Air Force, his First
Sergeant in particular, turned him into an alcoholic by making alcohol
so readily available.
The applicant states that he has been alcohol free for about 9 years.
He expresses shame of his past and recognizes that he can’t change it
(though he would if he could), and that he is concerned that his grand
kids may learn of his undesirable discharge. (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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we find no evidence to persuade us that his discharge was in
error or unjust. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03432 in Executive Session on 9 April 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Nov 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the former member’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s request to upgrade her late husband’s discharge be denied. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPTR states, in part, that there is...
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-2003-00438
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...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-03299
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 November 2002 for review and comment within 30 days. Based on the fact that the applicant did not want to take the leave, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...
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 | 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02269
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D & E). The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03244
The discharge authority approved the recommended separation and the applicant was honorably discharged on 21 Jul 80. The complete 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 for review and comment within 30 days on 1 Dec 06. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...