RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00014
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He would like his discharge upgraded so he could obtain GI Bill benefits to
complete his educational goals.
The applicant provided no evidence in support of his appeal. The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 28 July 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age
of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. He
was trained in the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 811X0, Security
Specialist career field. The applicant was promoted to the grade of airman
(E-2) effective 28 January 1987. He received one referral performance
report for the period 28 July 1986 through 4 August 1987, with an overall
rating of seven.
The applicant had 22 incidents of financial irresponsibility over the
period 6 January 1987 through 16 September 1987. The applicant also
received four letters of reprimand and four written counselings from the
period 2 May 1987 to 28 June 1987. On 5 November 1987 the applicant
received an Article 15 punishment for failure to pay a just debt. On 5
November 1987, his commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending the applicant for a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46 (minor disciplinary infractions)
for misconduct. The applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted counsel and
submitted statements to his commander on 17 November 1987. The assistant
staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient on 5 November 1987.
On 25 November 1987, the discharge authority approved the recommended
separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation. The applicant was discharged effective 14 December 1987
with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.
He had served 1 year, 4 months and 17 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation in affect at that time. Additionally, the discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The 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 on 27
January 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D). As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. The applicant did not provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders
abused their discretionary authority. The characterization of discharge
which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately
reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust. In view of the
foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend
favorable action on his request.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00014
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 2002.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jan 2003.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 2003.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00912
The commander indicated his reasons for this action were the Article 15 actions and on 28 February 1985 to 22 April 1985, he was counseled numerous times on his bearing, behavior, reporting to duty on time, and AFR 35-10 violations. On 26 March 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate conducted a legal review and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge and he not be afforded an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. They indicated the Air Force Discharge Review Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01437
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01437 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable and her narrative reason for discharge be changed to something more favorable to allow for better employment opportunities. Then on 19 August 1988, after...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01410
Since the applicant did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claim, DPPPR recommends denying the applicant’s request for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 July 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D). There is no indication in his records that he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04056
On 26 November 1956, the discharge authority approved the discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge effective 5 December 1956. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report were forwarded to the applicant on 7 March 2003 and 3 April 2003 for review and comment (Exhibits D and F). In our opinion, the cited statements are not of a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02091
In the recommendation for discharge, the commander noted the psychiatrist and Social Actions Officer reported the applicant was a drug abuser who had reported use of marijuana, mescaline, and LSD. At the time of his mental health evaluation, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and was determined to know right from wrong and possess the capacity to conform his behavior to law and Air Force regulations. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02565
On 21 Dec 72, the evaluation officer found that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service and recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge based on his history of violations of military and civilian law. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02160
The Discharge Authority approved the discharge on 25 October 1973 and ordered a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the findings of the Administrative Discharge Board should be set aside and his discharge upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003- 02160 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00935
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge on 21 October 1987 and understood if the recommendation for discharge was approved, he could receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the conditional waiver be accepted and applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00756
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that since there is no documentation in his records relating to his request for separation, they cannot provide an advisory concerning the circumstances leading to his release from active duty. As to the applicant’s separation code, it appears that the code, which is directly related to the reason for his separation, is, in fact, correct. The record indicates that the applicant was...