Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03763
Original file (BC-2002-03763.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03763

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 17 years old and a trouble youth who had just lost his  father.
He started getting into trouble and he was not given  counseling.   He
was not told that he could reenlist and he has carried this  guilt  of
not serving his country for over 20  years.   However,  as  he  looked
back, he did the best he could with what he had to  work  with  so  he
humbly asks the Board to lift that burden off his shoulders.

In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD  Form  293,
Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the
Armed Forces of the United States.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
28 Nov 77.  He was discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-12,
(Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude) from the Air Force on 15 Jul
78 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 7
months and 7 days of total active duty service.

On  27  Jun  78,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  he   was
recommending him for discharge  for  failure  to  maintain  prescribed
standards of military conduct, his defective attitude and  substandard
duty performance.  Basis for the action was three Articles 15:  3  Feb
78, for possession of marijuana; 30 Mar 78, for negligent damage to  a
juke box on base by breaking the glass and damage about $100;  and  21
Jun 78, for possession of marijuana.  On 19 May 78, the applicant  was
not recommended for promotion due to his record of misconduct  and  he
was placed on the Control Roster for substandard conduct.  He received
two Letters of Counseling: 23 May 78 for  falling  asleep  during  the
Commander’s Newcomers briefing and failure to  conform  to  AFR  35-10
regulations; and 21 Jun 78, for being late for weekly inspection for 3
weeks in a row.  An evaluation officer was appointed to interview  the
applicant and she found he was unsuited for further  military  service
because of  failure  to  maintain  prescribed  standards  of  military
deportment.  She also did not recommend probation  and  rehabilitation
(P&R).  The base legal office reviewed the case and found  it  legally
sufficient to support the discharge and they did  not  recommend  P&R.
Applicant consulted counsel and was advised of his rights but declined
to present statements.  On 12 Jul 78, the Discharge Authority approved
the discharge and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states 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.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting an  upgrade  in  his
discharge.   The  records  reflect  that   the   commander   initiated
administrative actions  based  on  information  he  determined  to  be
reliable and that administrative actions were  properly  accomplished.
The  applicant  was  afforded  all  rights  granted  by  statute   and
regulation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented  that  the
commander abused his  discretionary  authority  when  he  imposed  the
discharge action, and since we find no abuse  of  that  authority,  we
find no reason to overturn the commander’s  decision.   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 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  02-03763
in Executive Session on 12 February 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 13 Dec 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.





      ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03518

    Original file (BC-2002-03518.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was punished under Article 15, 19 Feb 82, for failure to report for duty; two Letters of Reprimand, dated 24 Aug 81 for failure to report to duty, and 13 Apr 83 for forgery with intent to defraud; and three Letters of Counseling, dated 19 Jul 81 for insufficient funds, 17 Jun 81 for substandard duty performance, and 29 May 81 for failure to follow proper leave procedures. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03667

    Original file (BC-2002-03667.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02379

    Original file (BC-2003-02379.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Apr 72, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing, and provided no facts warranting upgrade of his discharge. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01125

    Original file (BC-2003-01125.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evaluation officer recommended the applicant receive a general discharge and not be considered for rehabilitation. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00011

    Original file (BC-2002-00011.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00011 INDEX CODE: 110.03, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her pay records be corrected to show that on 1 Sep 99 she was authorized payment of $1,395.92 and that she was relieved of her indebtedness. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02030

    Original file (BC-2002-02030.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 March 2002, the applicant's commander notified him that he was being discharged for mental disorders, specifically a personality disorder. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE indicates that based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200519

    Original file (0200519.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The military mental health providers had followed the applicant for several months and were fully aware of his pattern of behavior over a prolonged period of time and were thus able to confidently make the diagnosis of personality disorder. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 21 June 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200236

    Original file (0200236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00236 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03786

    Original file (BC-2002-03786.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03667 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. During her time in the Air Force, she took her duties seriously and endeavored to excel. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200129

    Original file (0200129.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00129 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantiive requirements of...