RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01481
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:
The current discharge status has restricted his employment
opportunities or has disqualified his application altogether. He is a
police officer in the state of Oregon, and employment applications
have been denied due to type of discharge.
Applicant did not submit any documents in support of the appeal.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard
on 7 January 1991.
On 20 August 1993, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending his discharge from the Air National Guard of the United
States and as a Reserve of the Air National Guard according to ANGR 39-
10, under the provisions of Chapter 8, Involuntary Discharge for
Cause, Section C, Misconduct, paragraph 8-17, Drug Abuse. Reason for
this action is the result of the random urinalysis test administered
on 18 April 1993, which was found to be positive for marijuana.
The applicant was discharged from the Air National Guard and the Air
Force Reserve in the grade of senior airman on 2 June 1994. He
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served
a total of 3 years, 4 months and 26 days of service for pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI states that the applicant was involuntarily discharged from
the Air National Guard in accordance with ANGR 39-10, Administrative
Separation of Airmen, dated 15 September 1987, Para 8-17, “Airman will
be processed or discharged for misconduct based on drug abuse.” Based
on the provisions of the governing regulation and the information in
the applicant’s discharge case file, they recommend denial of his
request. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 29 August 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response 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 error or injustice. Evidence has not been presented
which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s general (under
honorable conditions) discharge was erroneous or unjust. The
available evidence indicates that the applicant’s discharge was based
on a positive urinalysis for marijuana, a serious act of misconduct.
He is now seeking an upgrade to his discharge to qualify for
employment opportunities. However, he has provided no evidence
showing his discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of
the governing regulation at the time it was effected or that his
commanders abused their discretionary authority. Furthermore, he has
provided no evidence which would lead us to believe that he has made a
successful post-service adjustment in the years following his
separation. Therefore, 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, BC-
2003-01481, in Executive Session on 30 September 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 19 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01325
He states that three months later he received an informal discharge document that stated “General (under honorable conditions).” The discharge needs to be changed, as he believed himself to be in good standing. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant contracted his enlistment in the -- ANG on 4 November 1987 after voluntarily leaving the Regular Air Force under the Palace Chase program. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00326
His character of service was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) and his reenlistment eligibility was recorded as “Ineligible.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPPI recommends denial. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change in his discharge and reenlisment eligibility. Vaughn E. Schlunz Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00003
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a letter to the Board. He received a general, under honorable conditions, discharge from the MS ANG for non-participation on 30 October 1993 after 1 year, 9 months and 21 days of service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPPI reviewed this application and recommended denial.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02841
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02841 INDEX CODE: 112.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment (RE) code be changed from “ineligible” to “eligible.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He made a costly and grave mistake before leaving for Basic...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02213
The applicant, while serving in the grade of Airman First Class, was separated from the Air Force under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) on 27 May 1977. His SPD reveals separation under the provisions of AFR 39-12, Section F, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Courts-Martial. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01206
He was serving in the grade of Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) and had served for six years, one month, and seventeen days at the time of his discharge. DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 August 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04052
On 4 December 1997, the Board considered applicant’s request and found sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the applicant’s physical evaluation through the Air Force Disability System to determine his medical condition as of 4 October 1994. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit C. On 25 February 1999, the Board considered the findings and recommendations of the Air Force Disability System and denied the applicant’s request that his records be changed to show...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01288
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was discharged from the TN ANG for unsatisfactory participation on 31 May 1997 after serving seven years, nine months, and six days of combined Reserve component and Regular Air Force service. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with the applicant’s civilian employment predicament at the time, there is simply no...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01179
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01179 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to airman (E-2) be changed from 20 Jan 98 to 7 Oct 97. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Special Actions & Personal Affairs, ANG/DPPU,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01179 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to airman (E-2) be changed from 20 Jan 98 to 7 Oct 97. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Special Actions & Personal Affairs, ANG/DPPU,...