Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00594
Original file (BC-2003-00594.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00594
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 18 years old and  was  simply  immature.   He  committed  minor
disciplinary infractions.  He is now 35 years old and  has  held  some
very important jobs.  He is seeking admittance into the  Air  National
Guard and has been advised that he  needs  to  upgrade  his  discharge
status to honorable.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 4 Nov 85.  On 28
May 87, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him  that  he  was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  He also recommended  that  the  applicant’s  service  be
characterized as general.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the
commander’s notification on 28  May  87  and  indicated  that  he  had
consulted counsel and elected to waive his right to submit  statements
in his behalf.  The applicant’s squadron commander recommended to  the
air base group commander on 28 May 87 that the applicant be discharged
from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions with  a  general
discharge.  On     2 Jun 87, the base staff judge advocate  found  the
discharge case legally sufficient and  recommended  to  the  air  base
group commander that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
discharge without an offer of probation and  rehabilitation.   On    4
Jun  87,  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  approved  with  a  general
discharge without offer of probation or rehabilitation.  The applicant
was discharged on 9 Jun 87.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided  no
other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s Reenlistment Eligibility  code  of
“2B,”  “separated  with  a  general   or   under-other-than-honorable-
conditions (UOTHC) discharge” and determined that it is correct.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states that he
is not disputing the legality or legitimacy of his discharge and fully
acknowledges the noted incidents.   However,  he  disagrees  with  the
assertion that the commander recommended him for a discharge and  that
he was involuntarily discharged.  He states that he had requested  the
discharge a couple of months prior to it taking place.  The  applicant
indicates that he is asking for a bit of humanity  and  understanding,
since he was only an 18-year-old kid who did not  know  a  good  thing
when he had it.  The applicant reiterates that it has  been  18  years
since he was discharged and he now knows where he stands.

The applicant’s complete response is 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, the Board notes that although the applicant  makes  reference
to his accomplishments  since  leaving  the  Air  Force,  he  has  not
provided sufficient evidence of his post-service activities warranting
an upgrade of his discharge.  In that regard, we recommend that he  be
furnished a copy of the information bulletin on upgrade of discharge--
clemency for his consideration  and  use.   In  the  alternative,  the
applicant may wish to consider submitting an application requesting  a
change of his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code to a waiverable  code
that would allow  him  to  apply  for  reentry  into  the  Air  Force.
However, in regards to the request before the Board at this  time,  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-
00594 in Executive Session on 19 June 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Apr 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00912

    Original file (BC-2003-00912.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00912 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B, “Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge,” be changed. For these actions, she received an LOR, which was placed in her existing UIF. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01032

    Original file (BC-2003-01032.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His emotional volatility, alcohol and substance abuse, and immaturity really clouded his judgment. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00317

    Original file (BC-2003-00317.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 Jun 87, the First Sergeant counseled applicant concerning his failure to pay the debt of $380. On 17 Jul 87, after consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of a general discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03787

    Original file (BC-2002-03787.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03787 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He was found guilty and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 32 months, reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of all pay...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00727

    Original file (BC-2003-00727.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00727 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed. The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367

    Original file (BC-2003-02367.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200241

    Original file (0200241.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00241 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 3A so that he may pursue a career in the U. S. Army. The evidence of records supports the stated reasons for the applicant's ineligibility to reenlist and we are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00629

    Original file (BC-2003-00629.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Jun 81, an Evaluation Officer interviewed the applicant and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge. He chose not to appeal the commander's determination, which prevented a timely look by another commander at the issues he now raises over 22 years later. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01354

    Original file (BC-2004-01354.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02689

    Original file (BC-2003-02689.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was separated on 22 January 1993 after serving three (3) months and twenty-nine (29) days on active duty and was issued a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C.” _____________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. The DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...