RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00217
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He had a clean record while in the service. He only left early for
personal reasons.
In support of the appeal, the applicant did not submit any documents.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 April 1968 for a
period of 4 years. Prior to the events under review, he was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3),
effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 1968. He received
four Airman Performance Reports, closing 10 February 1969, 11 November
1969, 10 March 1970, and 29 November 1970, in which the overall
evaluations were 8, 9, 8, and 9 (highest rating 9), respectively.
On 24 February 1970, the applicant received disciplinary punishment
for being drunk and disorderly in station. The punishment consisted
of a suspended reduction in grade to airman, correctional custody for
7 days and forfeiture of $25.00 of his pay. The suspension of the
reduction in grade was vacated on 7 May 1970 based on the
determination that the applicant left his duty station without
authority. He was again promoted to the grade of airman first class
on 1 September 1970.
On 29 June 1971, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending a general discharge for character and behavior disorder.
Reasons for this action: Applicant received nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15 on 8 March 1971 for using disrespectful language
toward a superior NCO and punishment was forfeiture of $25; and
Article 15, 15 June 1971, for failure to repair, punishment was
reduction to airman and forfeiture of $30. He received four records
of counseling: On 12 February 1971 for failure to repair, 3 May and
17 May 1971, for failure to maintain proper personal appearance; and
13 May 1971, for failure to obey a lawful order. On 23 June 1971, an
Air Force psychiatrist evaluated the applicant and rendered a
diagnosis of character and behavior disorder, specifically, a passive-
aggressive personality.
An evaluation officer was appointed to review the case and interview
the applicant. Upon review and personal interview, the evaluation
officer concurred with the commander and recommended a general
discharge. Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.
On 30 July 1971, the applicant signed a statement declining to submit
statements in his behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and
found it legally sufficient to support the discharge. The Discharge
Authority approved the discharge on 6 August 1971 and ordered a
general discharge without P&R.
The applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions
discharge on 17 August 1971. He was credited with 3 years, 4 months
and 8 days of active duty, of which 1 year and 7 months was foreign or
Southeast Asia (SEA) service.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
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 D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states that the copy of the letter indicated “applicant
declined to submit statements on his behalf,” the reason is he was not
there. Also his rank was not downgraded at his last post of Saratoga
AFS, NY.
He states that the records are inaccurate, no wonder he couldn’t get a
government job all these years. Whoever did this to him had a grudge
against him. As he remembers now, the NCOs did not like him because
he would not join or socialize with them in the NCO Club with their
daily drinking. There are also other issues of this NCO. When he
reported to his station, he found he was working for civilian employee
of very much experience and never saw one military person in that shop
at any time. If there was to be someone of rank the only place they
were seen was in the club.
His 30+ years of a clean record and perfect credit history should
stand for something. Also, his work history and his approval record
should stand for something. He served his country 3 plus years in
Korea during the USS Pueblo incident in 1970. Have been a VA State
Inspector for 25 years, and ASE certified for 12 years.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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. There is no indication in the
available evidence which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s
discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation
under which it was effected or that it was unjust. Other than his own
assertions, the applicant has not provided no evidence showing that
the information in his discharge case file was erroneous, that his
substantial rights were violated, that his commanders abused their
discretionary authority, or that his service warranted a better
characterization than the one he received. In the absence of such
evidence, we have no basis on which to favorably consider his request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 2 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Feb 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Feb 03.
EDWARD C. KOENIG, III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00277
His discharge has bothered him for years -- he is now 71. They further stated since his civil court conviction, his attitude towards his work and responsibilities was intolerable. Should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request for recharacterization of his discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02862
At the same time he was having problems with a girl friend back home. He had never given any thought to this until recently when Vermont was awarding medals for veterans who had served in Vietnam. Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00041
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00041 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. A new DD 214, Correction to DD Form 214, was issued changing the reason for discharge to read, “Unsuitability: Apathy and Defective Attitude.” The DPPRS evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02695
On 21 July 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for being late for duty. He received an RE code of 2B, “Separated with a General or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge.” __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial based on the applicant not submitting any new evidence nor identifying any errors or injustices that occurred during his discharge. After careful review of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03692
On 9 November 1970, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to report to duty on time. The applicant was interview by a physician on 11 May 1971. Attached to the applicant’s request was a statement by his military legal counsel.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01125
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...
Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00218
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00218 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUL 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). The evidence of record indicates the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03277
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03277 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. However, he did serve honorably while in the Air Force. In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his discharge evaluation officer's...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded, indicating that nothing can change the facts or the past. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...