Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00323
Original file (BC-2003-00323.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  03-00323

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
(under honorable conditions) general discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should have been general (under honorable conditions).

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy  of  DD  Form  293,
Applicant for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of  the
United States.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 May 66 for a period  of  4
years and was progressively promoted to the  grade  of  airman  third  class
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of  29  Jun  67.
The applicant was discharged from the Air Force  on  28  Dec  67  under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12 (frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable  nature
with civil and military  authorities)  and  received  an  under  other  than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served 1 year, 7  months  and  3
days total active service.

On  18  Dec  67,  the  applicant  was  ordered  to  be  discharged  with  an
undesirable  discharge  certificate.   The  notification  letter  from   his
commander is missing from his records, however, there is  a  statement  from
his commander (undated) that outlines the reason for the discharge  and  all
incidents are documented in his records.  The summary includes  19  failures
to repair incidents, 3 tardiness incidents; and failure to pass  his  skills
test  on  two  occasions.   He  was  convicted  by  civil  authorities   for
wrongfully appropriating private vehicle and failure to pay indebtedness  in
connection  with  the  conviction.   He  received  nonjudicial  Article   15
punishment on  two  separate  occasions  for  failure  to  repair.   He  was
disruptive in the on-the-job training program and his  commander  stated  he
was a disciplinary problem in  his  section  and  squadron.   The  applicant
consulted with counsel and requested to appear before a discharge board  but
later recanted (1 Dec 67) and waived his right to appear and did not  submit
statements.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and  ordered  an
UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed  applicant’s  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPRS
states  that  based  upon  the  documentation  in  file,  they  believe  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge authority.  Applicant contends his discharge  was  supposed
to have been a general discharge; however, upon review of  his  records,  we
can find no documentation recommending anything other  than  an  undesirable
discharge.

The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing.   Additionally,  he
provided no facts warranting an  upgrade  of  his  discharge.   Accordingly,
they recommend his records remain the same and his request  be  denied.   He
has not filed timely request.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 21 Feb 03, for review and comment.  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 to  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.  His contentions are duly noted; however, evidence has  not  been
presented to show that  his  discharge  was  improper  or  contrary  to  the
provisions of the directive under which it was affected.   Furthermore,  the
reasons for the discharge proceedings are well documented in  the  available
record.  The characterization of his service was based on the  circumstances
which existed at the time and resulted from his own misconduct.  Hence,  the
applicant has provided no new evidence which would lead us to  believe  that
the cited reasons for his discharge proceedings  were  erroneous,  that  his
substantial rights were  violated,  or  that  his  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority.  Therefore, we conclude that  no  basis  exists  to
grant favorable action on his request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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-2003-00323
in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.






      CHARLES E. BENNETT
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2002-04016

    Original file (bc-2002-04016.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04016 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: Jerry Berry HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant appealed to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) to upgrade his discharge. (Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03800

    Original file (BC-2002-03800.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 24 February 1957. On 15 June 1960, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge due to the Air Force considering him unfit to serve further. Having found no 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 favorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03705

    Original file (BC-2002-03705.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken against him were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other than his own misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2002-03705 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03260

    Original file (BC-2002-03260.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge IV/Specification 1: Applicant, having received a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer, to be restricted to barracks 700, did, at Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, on or about 7 June 1973, willfully disobey the same. On 6 June 1973, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of court- martial and stated he understood he could receive an undesirable discharge. On 15 June 1973, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03483

    Original file (BC-2002-03483.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03483 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 6 April 1987, she received another Article 15 that imposed reduction in grade to Airman Basic (AB/E-1) for two additional charges...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101987

    Original file (0101987.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01987 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry-level separation be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02247

    Original file (BC-2004-02247.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge authority approved the findings and recommendations of the Board of Officers and directed that applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 October 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03376

    Original file (BC-2002-03376.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Dec 59 and 18 Oct 78, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703744

    Original file (9703744.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that information reflected on his WD AGO Form 53-59, they find no evidence to indicate the applicant's discharge, over 48 years ago, was incorrect, an injustice occurred to the applicant, or 97- 03744 that the discharge did not comply with the discharge directive in effective at the time of his discharge. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00970

    Original file (BC-2005-00970.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 Apr 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied his request that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded and that his felony conviction be erased from his civilian records.