RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04050
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to general.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His command abused its authority when it decided to discharge him
after he was exonerated by his squadron commander. The case was then
picked up by an outside division and pushed through the base
commander.
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, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release
or Discharge From Active Duty, DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment
Document Armed Forces of the United States, Personal Data Sheet, and
Report of Medical History.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
18 April 1985. The commander recommended the applicant be discharged
under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Request for Discharge in Lieu of
Court-Martial) with service characterized under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge on 13 May 1993 in the grade of
sergeant. He served 8 years and 26 days of total active service.
Documents are missing from applicant’s records that led up to the
request for discharge in lieu of court-martial. Limited documentation
shows he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 in December
1991 for larceny of government property of less than $100, making a
false statement and forgery of someone else’s signature on a meal
ticket. In January 1993, his supervisor did not recommend
reenlistment because he had shown a repeated record of financial
irresponsibility. Despite numerous administrative actions, he had not
seen fit to correct this problem (taken from AF Form 418, Selective
Reenlistment Form).
On 25 June 1998, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed
and denied the applicant's request for upgrade.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon documentation
in file, they believe 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request
for upgrade on 25 June 1998. The Board ruled that by resigning in lieu
of trial by court-martial, the applicant forfeited the opportunity to
prove his innocence and avoided the possibility of a conviction, jail
time and a punitive discharge. The “standard” characterization for
this type of discharge is UOTHC. 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, they recommend his records
remain the same and his request be denied.
AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was 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 a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that
his discharge should be upgraded. While the documents pertaining to his
discharge are missing, we do know that he requested to be discharge in lieu
of trial by court-martial. If he had been exonerated of the charges, as he
alleges, we do not understand why he requested to be discharged with
service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The
applicant has provided no evidence showing that he was forced to separate;
therefore, 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-
04050 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Vaughn Schlunz, Member
Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Feb 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00060
At the time of his discharge, there were no provisions of law that allowed for retirement with less than 20 years of active service. AFPC/DPPRRP complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s spouse reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that the discharge processing was probably handled properly, however, there has been a grave injustice committed...
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-2003-00048
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00048 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02768
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02768 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 29 November 1988, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged with an under other than...
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-2003-01536
He was employed with them for 15 years. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he made a mistake 16 years ago, and has learned from that mistake. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00583
Data extracted from documents provided by the applicant indicates that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Jan 51 and was discharged on 3 Mar 53 with a general discharge. Based on the directives in effect at the time of his discharge, DPPRS believes the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. As of this date, this office has received no response.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00345
The undated request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial indicates that the commander recommended the request be approved for the following reasons: The applicant had no rehabilitative potential for further utilization in the Air Force because he engaged in larcenous conduct after he had previously been convicted of burglary and larceny in 1980. On 4 August 1983, after consulting with counsel the applicant requested to be discharged from the Air Force in lieu of trial by...