Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02565
Original file (BC-2003-02565.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02565
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge  be  changed  to
honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He worked hard during his period of service and committed no  major
offenses.  He believes that based on his  work  record,  he  should
have received an honorable discharge.  He also was a volunteer  for
service during the Vietnam War.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Dec 71, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in
the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for  a  period  of  four  years.
Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the  grade  of
airman (Amn/E-2).  He  received  one  performance  report  with  an
overall promotion recommendation of 5 (on a scale of 1 to 9).

On 15 Aug 72, the applicant received an  Article  15  for  wrongful
possession of 1.8 grams of marihuana.  His punishment consisted  of
suspended reduction to grade of airman basic, forfeiture of $50 per
pay for one month and 7 days of extra duty.

On or about 5 Oct 72, he operated his privately  owned  vehicle  60
miles per hour (mph) in a posted 30 mph speed zone,  for  which  he
received a letter of reprimand.

On 13 Dec 72, he received an Article 15 for wrongful possession  of
6.11 grams, more or less, of marijuana.  His  punishment  consisted
of vacation of his suspended reduction to the grade of airman basic
and forfeiture of $67 per month for one month.

On 15 Dec  72,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for a character and behavior
disorder;  specifically,  the  Base  Psychiatrist   diagnosed   the
applicant as possessing an Antisocial Personality.   On  that  same
date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.

On  20  Dec  72,  after  consulting  with  an  evaluation  officer,
applicant submitted statements in his own behalf, stating  he  felt
if given an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation, he  could
prove that he could be a mature, responsible individual and airman.
 On 21 Dec 72, the evaluation officer found that the applicant  was
unsuitable for further military service and recommended that he  be
discharged with  a  general  discharge  based  on  his  history  of
violations of military and civilian law.  On 21 Dec 72,  the  Staff
Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient  to  support
discharge and recommended a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation (P&R).  He further noted that the applicant was free
on bond awaiting trials on charges of auto theft in New Mexico, and
wrongful possession of marijuana in the State of Georgia.

On 22 Dec 72, the discharge authority  approved  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge, without P&R.

On 22 Dec 72, applicant was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12 (unsuitability - character and behavior  disorder),  with
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).   He
was credited with 11 months and 24  days  of  active  duty  service
(excludes 14 days of lost time due to civil confinement).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of his request.  They  found  that
the discharge was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally,  that  the
discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the   discharge
authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not  submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in
the discharge processing  and  that  he  provided  no  other  facts
warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 29 Aug 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

On 17 Oct 03, a copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for comment.   At  that  time,  the  applicant  was  also
invited to provide evidence  pertaining  to  his  activities  since
leaving the service (Exhibit F).  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.   After  careful
consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence  that
the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary
to the provisions of the governing regulations  in  effect  at  the
time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were based on
factors other than his own misconduct.  Based on his overall record
of service, and in view of  the  contents  of  the  FBI  Report  of
Investigation,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of  the
characterization of  his  discharge  is  warranted.   Having  found
insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard  to  the
actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we
conclude that no basis exists to  grant  favorable  action  on  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-02565 in Executive Session on 5 November  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 03, w/atchs.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02153

    Original file (BC-2002-02153.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the limited documentation in the applicant’s file, they found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time of his discharge. The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Aug 03 for review and comment within...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02655

    Original file (BC-2003-02655.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Aug 70, the base commander recommended approval of an undesirable discharge. On 18 Aug 70, the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” On 24 Aug 70, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as other than honorable. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02091

    Original file (BC-2003-02091.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the recommendation for discharge, the commander noted the psychiatrist and Social Actions Officer reported the applicant was a drug abuser who had reported use of marijuana, mescaline, and LSD. At the time of his mental health evaluation, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and was determined to know right from wrong and possess the capacity to conform his behavior to law and Air Force regulations. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00406

    Original file (BC-2004-00406.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. On 23 Dec 58, the discharge authority approved a general discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 257AF, “General Discharge.” On 31 Dec 58, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16, with service characterized as under honorable conditions. A...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02983

    Original file (BC-2001-02983.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 December 1977, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for failure to go on 17 December 1977. The discharge authority approved the discharge on 24 January 1978 and ordered an UOTHC characterization without P&R. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair Mr. David W....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02427

    Original file (BC-2003-02427.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Jun 82, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to general or honorable. On 30 Aug 82, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board (see Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In the applicant’s response to the evaluation,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03032

    Original file (BC-2004-03032.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03032 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant was discharged on 15 Dec 72, in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of unfitness, with service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001883

    Original file (0001883.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of his discharge from...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03758

    Original file (BC-2005-03758.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    (3) On 5 June 1989, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for reporting for duty over two hours late. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on her request. Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 24 Jan 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202759

    Original file (0202759.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His one Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period closing 29 Sep 72 has an overall rating of 6. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 17 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel...