RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00446
INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed
to honorable, his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to RE-
1, his narrative reason for separation be changed to convenience of
the government and his separation program designator (SPD) code be
changed to correspond with a honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was immature and made bad decisions while off duty. He was an asset
to the Air Force, received effective evaluations and the good conduct
medal. The applicant states that since his separation from the Air
Force he has been a productive hard working citizen, and is active in
the community. He maintains that he is the son of a former Vietnam
serviceman who was shot down, listed as missing in action and
eventually listed as killed in action. He hopes that his pass
mistakes will not mar his feelings for serving in the Air Force.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force as an airman basic on 30 May
1980 for a term of 4 years. He was separated from the Air Force on 7
September 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (resignation for the
good of the service) UOTHC discharge.
Court-martial charges were referred against the applicant on 27
July 1984. He was investigated by the Office of Special Investigation
(OSI) undercover operation, from 1 April to 24 May 1984.
Investigation revealed applicant had used marijuana on two occasions
and had distributed marijuana to two other Air Force members on
another occasion. He drove the OSI agent to purchase marijuana from a
civilian supplier after assisting in arrangements for the purchase.
On 31 July 1984, after charges were referred, he requested discharge
in lieu of court-martial. His commander and the base legal office
recommended approval of the discharge with a UOTHC characterization.
The staff judge advocate reviewed the case on 16 August 1984, and
found it legally sufficient and recommended approval of a UOTHC
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The discharge
authority approved the request for discharge (in lieu of court-
martial) and ordered a UOTHC discharge on 22 August 1984. Applicant
was discharged on 7 September 1984.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 11 April 2003, that, on the basis of data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. The discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors
of injustices that occurred in the discharge process. Additionally,
the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code
of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with a general or (UOTHC) discharge”
is correct.
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
11 Apr 03, for review and comment within 30 days. 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 an error or injustice. After careful consideration
of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions
taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that
the actions taken against the applicant were unjust. Therefore, we
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2003-
00446 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
Ms. Sharon Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 03 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Feb 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Mar 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00959
The person told him that he would be able to reenlist as his discharge was a General discharge. On 26 June 2002, applicant was notified that he was being discharged under the auspices of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, for unsatisfactory duty performance and minor disciplinary infractions. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions of an increase in maturity, in and of itself, sufficiently...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02099
In a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, applicant now requests that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for prior to her discharge. The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,”...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00624
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was trying to find a way to get out of the service to spend time with his grandfather and mother after his grandmother died. The First Sergeant assured the applicant that he would be honorably discharged. The applicant was notified on 12 August 1994 that he was being recommended for discharge under the auspices of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01413
He was honorably released from active duty on 10 Apr 03 with one year and seven months of active service for that period and transferred to the VTANG. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS notes there are no documents in the applicant’s personnel record pertaining to his discharge process or the misconduct leading up to his discharge from active duty since they were apparently purged by the ARPC in 2001. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00338
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 11 July 1985 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - pattern of discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities) with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 April 2003, a copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00450
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00450 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to honorable. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01753
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01753 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected by changing the description of his misconduct from “a user or abuser of illegal drugs” to “a conspirator in the purchase/sale/use of an illegal drug.” His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be...
He received an uncharacterized entry level separation on 21 Aug 01 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (fraudulent entry into military service). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that, on 15 Aug 01, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00251
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He hurt his leg during his first year of service and during the next 3 years of rehabilitation he was bounced around from commander to commander thereby hindering any opportunity to complete his initial training. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this case file and recommended denial. Exhibit D. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01621
The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 18 January 1985. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.