Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02474
Original file (BC-2003-02474.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02474
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for  his  discharge  be  removed  from  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason for his discharge is a private and confidential matter  and
should not be disclosed, because it is unlawful and  unfairly  hinders
his progression.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
1 May 1984 for a term of 6 years.

On 20 October 1988, the applicant's commander notified him that he was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the  provisions
of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct, Drug Abuse) and  receive  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.  Reason for the action was on 21 July
1988, he tested positive for cocaine on a command-directed urinalysis;
a Letter  of  Counseling,  dated       24  August  1988,  for  conduct
unbecoming an NCO; a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 1  August  1988,
for  conduct  unbecoming,  drunk  and  disorderly,  insubordinate   an
operating a vehicle without insurance; an LOR, dated 6 July 1988,  for
being disrespectful to an NCO; and records  of  individual  counseling
for financial irresponsibility on 15 March 1988 and 17 November  1987.
On 31 August 1988, he made a suicidal gesture by taking an overdose of
medication.

After consulting with the area defense counsel, he declined to  submit
statements in his behalf.  The discharge case was reviewed by the base
legal office and found to be legally sufficient to support  discharge.
The discharge authority approved his discharge on 24 October 1988  and
ordered a general discharge without  P&R.   He  was  discharged  on  1
November 1988.

He submitted an application to the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded.  On 5 February 2003, the
AFDRB denied his request.

On 30 July 2003, the applicant’s records  were  corrected  to  reflect
that he served five years, four  months,  and  twenty-one  days  total
active service and a new DD 214 was mailed to him.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   Members  who  separate  from  active
service are issued two copies of their DD Form 214.  Copy one does not
have blocks 23 through 30 (Special Additional  Information)  and  does
not show the reason for separation.  A member may show copy  1  if  he
does not want the reason for discharge known.  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 or  change  of  the  discharge.   Recommend  his
records remain the same and his request be denied.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1
August 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 in regard to his  request  that
his reason for discharge be removed from his DD  Form  214.   After  a
thorough review of the documentation provided in support of his appeal
and the  evidence  of  record,  it  is  our  opinion  that  given  the
circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air  Force,  the  DD
Form 214 issued to the applicant was proper and in compliance with the
appropriate directives.  Copy one of your DD Form 214  does  not  have
blocks 23 through 30 (Special Additional  Information)  and  does  not
show the reason for separation.  You may show copy one if  you  prefer
not to disclose the reason for  your  discharge.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief requested.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
02474 in Executive Session on 21 October 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Aug 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.





      OLGA M. CRERAR
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01522

    Original file (BC-2003-01522.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01522 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 25 January 1984, applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board contingent upon receiving a general discharge. A general discharge was recommended...

  • 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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01254

    Original file (BC-2003-01254.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this misconduct, he received a Record of Counseling dated 4 June 1988. On 8 September 1989, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit a statement. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility code of "2C," indicating the member was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry-level separation without characterization, which is correct.

  • 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02007

    Original file (BC-2004-02007.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, DD Form 214 certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and case documents from the Air Force Discharge Review Board. On 13 September 2003, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable, change of reason for separation and change of RE code. (Exhibit B) The applicant was initially...

  • 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-2003-03291

    Original file (BC-2003-03291.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03291 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased husband’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to show that his grade at the time of discharge was technical sergeant (E-6). ...

  • 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01216

    Original file (BC-2003-01216.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 December 2000, the discharge authority’s staff judge advocate recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and that the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC characterization of service. It is also JA’s opinion that the applicant should not be allowed to use his discharge request to halt the court-martial process established by law as the proper means to adjudicate the criminal allegations against him and now, under the guise of an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02616

    Original file (BC-2003-02616.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02616 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation and reenlistment codes be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS states they believe the...