RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03926
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since leaving the Air Force in 1987 he has not been in any trouble.
His complete application is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
31 October 1983. The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the
provision of AFR 39-12 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary
Infractions) with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions) on 29 January 1987 in the grade of airman first class. He
served 3 years, 2 months and 29 days of active service.
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. Basis
for the action was the applicant received two Article 15s, for
striking another airman on 9 March 1986 and 29 November 1986.
Punishment included reduction to airman (suspended until 18 September
1986), forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months and correctional
custody for 30 days. After the second incident, his suspended
reduction was remitted and he forfeited $150. In addition to the
Article 15s, he was counseled both formally and informally regarding
his deficiencies; but he failed to improve. Applicant waived his
right to consult with counsel and submit statements. The base legal
office reviewed the discharge package and found it legally sufficient
to support the discharge. His commander did not recommend probation
or further rehabilitation. The Discharge Authority approved the
separation and ordered a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation on 26 January 1987.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. Based on the documentation in the
file, DPPRS believes 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. Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings. The
applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the 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. We conducted a review of the
applicant’s case file. The applicant was discharged from the Air
Force on 29 January 1987 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct-
Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
code 2B is correct.
AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
14 February 2003, for review and comment within 30 days. 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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence
of record, it appears that applicant’s discharge was in accordance
with the applicable regulation. Based on this determination, the only
other basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of his discharge would
be based on clemency. However, applicant has failed to provide
documentation pertaining to his post service activities. If he can
provide such documentation, we would be willing to reconsider his
application. In view of our above findings, we find no basis upon
which to recommend favorable action on 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 BC-2002-
03926 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Feb 03
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03678
For this, he received a Record of Counseling (ROC), dated 11 October 1990. b. For this misconduct, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 6 December 1990. d. The applicant on 5 December 1990, reported late for his dental appointment causing the appointment to be rescheduled. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
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-2003-00674
(b) On 10 August 1986, received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to call his duty section as directed. On 18 December 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) approved applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable; however, his request for a change of RE code was denied. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01231
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01231 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. He recommended a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04057
On 16 February 1984, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for misconduct. On 13 March 1984, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge. On 3 March 1985, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to have his RE code of 2B changed.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04029 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. A complete copy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01673
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01673 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00431
For these actions, he received an LOR, which was placed in his existing UIF. On 19 Dec 01, the applicant was discharged under provisions of AFI 36-3208 by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). On 15 Nov 02, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) found that neither evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant, substantiated an inequity or impropriety which would justify a change in the discharge (see AFDRB Hearing Record...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2002-03675
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03675 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed. The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman first class, was discharged from the...
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. 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. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the...