RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00104
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was a model troop. He was in charge of his squadron during their
police academy. He was also in charge of his troop at Fort Dix. He
did his job to the best of his ability and more.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 November 1989.
Applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first
class on 4 January 1990.
Applicant’s overall rating on his EPR rendered for the period 17
November 1989 through 16 July 1991 was a “3” referral report.
On 18 March 1992, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending discharge for a pattern of misconduct. He recommended a
general discharge. Basis for the action was a Letter of Reprimand, on
31 July 1990, for failure to go to an appointment; 26 June 1991, given
a formal notice by an off-base establishment not to return to the
premises nor telephone its employees; 28 June 1992, his commander gave
him a written order to have no communication with a certain female
because she complained he was harassing her; 23 September 1991, Letter
of Counseling for violation of AFR 35-10; 8 November 1991, driving
while intoxicated and having driving privileges revoked; 3 and
4 December 1991, failure to report to dormitory CQ duty on time; 13
December 1991, disobeyed a lawful command by driving with suspended
driving privileges; and 2 February 1992, failure to go on time to
prescribed place of duty. After consulting with counsel, he submitted
statements to his commanders for consideration. The base legal office
reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the
discharge. His commanders did not recommend probation and
rehabilitation (P&R) because in spite of numerous counselings, he
failed to improve. On 13 April 1992, the Discharge Authority approved
the separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R.
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged
from the Air Force on 17 April 1992 under the provisions of AFR 39-10
(Misconduct - Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and
Discipline) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He
served 2 years, 5 months and 1 day on active duty.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s
request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable on 12
June 1998. The AFDRB decision document is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states that 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. Therefore, they recommend denial of
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 14 February 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response 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, 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 agree with the decision of the AFDRB 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.
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 issue(s) 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 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Feb 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02884
Additionally, his commanders recommended a UOTHC discharge. The applicant, while serving in the grade of sergeant, was discharged from the Air Force on 23 April 1992 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial) with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 25 January 1996.
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03259
On 24 June 2004, the applicant submitted an application to the AFDRB requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable and his narrative reason for separation changed to “convenience of the government.” The AFDRB considered all the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations and within the discretion of the discharge authority; and, that the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02057
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Because the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his discharge from “Under Honorable Conditions (General)” to “Honorable,” his reentry code and narrative reason for separation should be changed to allow him to re-enter active military service. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s case and concludes that the RE code of 2C is correct. The DPPAE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01967
Other than the applicant’s attached brief and a copy of his Certificate of Military Service obtained from NPRC, the facts leading to the discharge are not available in his records. On 7 December 1979 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02254
On 2 January 1992, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct-civil conviction. On 6 January 1992, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Civil Conviction and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 9 April 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied his application and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00028
On 30 January 1964, he appeared before a board of officers and the findings and recommendation was to separate him with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. The base legal services reviewed the report from the board of officers and found it legally sufficient to support the findings and recommendation to discharge him with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. On 8 April 1964, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02136
On 25 April 1982, he was honorably discharged from the Army Reserve for completion of required service. On 1 December 1986, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He has changed over the years and he wants the chance to correct his mistakes.
A complete copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the AFDRB Hearing Record and submitted additional documentation to further substantiate his contention that his 13 November 1991 civil court conviction had been expunged in 1997. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G). After careful consideration of the available facts contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board brief surrounding the applicant’s discharge, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s discharge. Exhibit B.