Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02457
Original file (BC-2003-02457.doc) Auto-classification: Denied





                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02457
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (Under Honorable  Conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has had to live with this unjust  discharge,  even  though  it  was
under honorable conditions, for 16 years.  If the testimony is checked
along with the records of the individuals involved in this matter, the
Board will find out the truth of what happened.  After  16  years,  he
deserves the truth to be heard  and  the  facts  seen  by  the  proper
individuals who can  right  this  wrong.   He  deserves  an  honorable
discharge and asks for no apology nor will he entertain retribution.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 May 1985.  On 12
August 1986, the applicant was issued an Article 15 for  disobeying  a
direct order.  He was given a six month suspended reduction  in  grade
to Airman Basic (AB/E-1) and ordered into correctional custody for  30
days.  On 15 August 1986, he unlawfully left the correctional  custody
facility.  He was tried by Special Court Martial on  7  October  1986.
He pled guilty and  was  punished  with  reduction  in  grade  to  AB,
forfeiture of $300 per month for  three  months  and  confinement  for
three months.  On 16 December 1986 his commander recommended a general
discharge in accordance with Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Pattern
of Misconduct, Consisting of Discreditable Involvement  with  Military
Authorities.   The  discharge  was   found   legally   sufficient   on
23 December 1986.  He was given the opportunity to meet  with  counsel
and/or submit statements.  He declined to  submit  statements  in  his
behalf and was not considered for Probation and Rehabilitation  (P&R).
He was discharged effective 24 December 1986, with a  general,  (Under
Honorable Conditions) discharge after serving one year,  four  months,
and twenty-four days, not counting 76 lost days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  that  the  discharge  was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation  and  within  the  discretionary  powers  of  the
discharge authority.  They note the Discharge Review  Board’s  (DRB’s)
denial of the application in 1988 and that the request is not  timely.
No new evidence or any identification of error or injustice  has  been
presented to warrant a change to the discharge.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
22 August 2003 for review and comment within  30  days.   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,  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  are  not  persuaded  by  the
evidence presented that the separation  characterization  received  by
the applicant should be changed.  His discharge was based on his trial
and conviction by a special court-martial.  There is  nothing  in  the
available record that would cause us to disturb  the  actions  of  the
reviewing officials in  this  case.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the
opinion  and  recommendation  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.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02457  in  Executive  Session  on  22  October  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Aug 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 03.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02938

    Original file (BC-2002-02938.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02938 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. Based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02481

    Original file (BC-2003-02481.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received an honorable discharge and asks that his records be reviewed towards that end. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04072

    Original file (BC-2003-04072.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 August 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. On 22 August 1972, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for disobeying a lawful order on or about 9 August 1972. He had served 15 years, 10 months, and 18 days on active duty.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03148

    Original file (BC-2002-03148.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Discharge of Airmen During Their First Enlistment - Unsuitability). DPPRS notes also that the applicant provided no evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred during discharge processing, nor did the applicant provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Nov 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03148

    Original file (BC-2002-03148.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Discharge of Airmen During Their First Enlistment - Unsuitability). DPPRS notes also that the applicant provided no evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred during discharge processing, nor did the applicant provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Nov 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00586

    Original file (BC-2005-00586.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    h. On 15 October 1986, the applicant failed to report for duty at the prescribed time, for which he received written counseling. For this misconduct, the applicant was counseled. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03011

    Original file (BC-2002-03011.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03011 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. DoD has determined that it would be unfair to the applicant and the service if the limited service of the airman were characterized. (Exhibit D) HQ AFPC/DPPAE confirms that the RE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03011

    Original file (BC-2002-03011.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03011 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. DoD has determined that it would be unfair to the applicant and the service if the limited service of the airman were characterized. (Exhibit D) HQ AFPC/DPPAE confirms that the RE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03639

    Original file (BC-2003-03639.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFPC/DPPRS 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 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of this date, this office has received no response. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01523

    Original file (BC-2003-01523.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. He was separated from the Air Force on 20 December 2000 with a general (under honorable conditions discharge and issued an RE code of “2B”. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale...