RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02673
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:
He was suffering from PTSS (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome) during the
period of time he was discharged. His wife was raped while he was in
tech school at Chanute AFB.
Applicant did not submit any documents in support of the appeal.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 March 1974. He
was promoted to the grade of airman (E-2), effective 13 July 1974 and
received one Airman Performance Report (APR) in which the overall
evaluation was “7.”
On 1 August 1975, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending a general discharge because of a civil conviction. The
applicant was convicted in General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, ----- on 23 June 1975 for felonious possession of marijuana.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to not less than three or more
than five years of confinement. His sentence was suspended. Instead,
he received probation for three years, a $500 fine, plus payment of
court charges and court-appointed attorney costs. He consulted with
counsel but elected, after consultation, to waive his rights to an
administrative discharge board hearing. He submitted a statement
requesting consideration for a general discharge along with character
statements. His commanders recommended a general discharge without
rehabilitation. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it
legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended a general
discharge. The Discharge Authority ordered a general discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged
from the Air Force on 15 September 1975 under the provisions of AFR 39-
12 (misconduct-civil conviction) and received an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge. He served one year, six months and
ten days of total active service. The applicant had a record of seven
days (18-24 November 1974) time lost for civil confinement.
As a result of the Board’s favorable consideration of his appeal, on
30 January 1985, the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards directed that
applicant’s records be corrected to show that the period 18 through 24
November 1974 was not lost time and all references thereto be deleted
from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of
the discharge authority. Therefore, they recommend denial of the
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 12 September 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, there is no support for his contentions in the available
record. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to
believe that the information in his discharge case file was erroneous,
that his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders
abused their discretionary authority. In the absence of such evidence
or information concerning his post-service activities, 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 this application, BC-
2003-02573, in Executive Session on 16 October 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 03.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02724
He received an honorable discharge and desires to reenter the Air Force. The reason for this action was because he failed his CDC on 20 June and 5 October 2001, scoring 64%, and 61% -- the minimum passing score was 65%. Additionally, we note that the applicant’s assigned RE code of 3A is a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided he meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01542
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01542 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02444
On 20 Sep 02, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as general, under honorable conditions. On 8 Jan 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-02444 in Executive Session...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01254
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-02616
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02441
On 16 January 1985, the applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) for being late for duty on 15 January 1986. k. The applicant received verbal counseling on 24 January 1985 for a dishonored check. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). While the applicant contends that he was discharged because he was deemed unfit psychologically, it appears that the discharge was based on the applicant’s overall misconduct,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02627
However, as of this date, this office has received no response. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03003
They also noted that the former member did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. The majority of the Board finds that the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and they find no evidence to indicate that the former member’s separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03730
The applicant did not submit any new evidence nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. However, as of this date, this office has received no response. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that a change to his characterization of service is warranted.