Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02481
Original file (BC-2003-02481.doc) Auto-classification: Denied





                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02481
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received an  honorable  discharge  and  asks  that  his
records  be  reviewed   towards   that   end.    He   needs   Veterans
Administration (VA) health care.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
10 January 1977.  He attained the grade of  Senior  Airman  (Sra/E-4).
He received Article 15’s on three different occasions, 25 April  1980,
16 June 1980 and, 18 August 1980.  He was charged under Special  Court
Martial with slashing, with a knife, the  seats  of  another  airman’s
automobile, smashing the windshield of the same car with a tire  iron,
stealing and illegally disposing of a citizens band radio, a wallet, a
credit card, a military ID card, and a  flight  line  badge.   He  was
discharged as an Airman (E-2), in accordance with Air Force Regulation
(AFR) 39-12, Misconduct-Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature
with Civil and Military Authorities.  His discharge  was  Under  Other
Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) and  was  effective  on  12 December
1980.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were considered  but  deemed
not appropriate.  He had served three years, eleven months, and  three
days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  While they note the applicant’s record
is  somewhat  incomplete  and   is   missing   the   usual   discharge
documentation, DPPRS states, with the  available  evidence,  that  the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and within the  discretionary
powers of the discharge authority.  Additionally, 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 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  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility in that while the record is  somewhat
incomplete, there  is  enough  available  evidence  to  determine  the
discharge  was  accurate.   Consequently,  we  adopt  the  Air   Force
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02481  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 16 Jul 03.
    Exhibit B.  Available 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-2003-00139

    Original file (BC-2003-00139.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel requests the applicant’s case be reviewed and considered for...

  • 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-2003-02457

    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. He was discharged effective 24 December 1986, with a general, (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge after serving one year, four months, and twenty-four...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02860

    Original file (BC-2003-02860.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Recommendation Letter and Legal Review could not be found in the available records. As he has provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge, denial is recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we conclude the general discharge was appropriate given the applicant’s misconduct and that the RE code, which was driven by the discharge, is correct.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02432

    Original file (BC-2003-02432.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02432 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. He was evaluated on 13 August 1975 whereupon the evaluating officer recommended the applicant be discharged immediately and that he be furnished a general...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01156

    Original file (BC-2003-01156.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 August 1980, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge. - 6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended 15 May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for failure to go to appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03907

    Original file (BC-2003-03907.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 March 1980, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to report to his duty section at the prescribed time. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00438

    Original file (BC-2003-00438.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The following information was obtained from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record. On 17 Nov 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a change to the reason and authority for the discharge. After careful review of the available records and the information contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Record, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force...

  • 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00906

    Original file (BC-2004-00906.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Aug 03, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force with service characterized as honorable for failure to progress in on-the-job training (OJT). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAT evaluated the applicant’s request for benefits...