Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1985-03929
Original file (BC-1985-03929.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1985-03929
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason he was given for his separation was not justified.   His
commander offered to let him out of the service  and  he  accepted.
His conduct was never proven to be a discredit and  he  would  like
this comment removed.  He was accused of kicking  someone  but  was
never convicted or charged with anything.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENTS OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  1  Oct  80,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 25 Jun 82, administrative discharge action was initiated against
the applicant.  The bases for this  action  were:   a  21  Sep  81,
letter of nonrecommendation for promotion for 39 dishonored  checks
totaling $1,300; a  25  Sep  81,  letter  of  reprimand  (LOR)  for
financial irresponsibility; three  letters  of  counseling  between
4 Dec 81 and 8 Apr 82 for leaving his line  badge  at  home,  being
late for work and having a physical altercation with a coworker; an
LOR on 24 Mar 82  for  being  absent  from  his  duty  section  for
excessive periods without authority on 26 Feb 82 and 9-11  Mar  82,
and an LOR on 16 Jun 82 for  being  absent  from  assigned  weekend
standby duty on 5 Jun 82; on 9 Jun 82, he was reduced to the  grade
of airman and forfeiture of $100 per month for two months  pursuant
to Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go at the  prescribed  time  to
appointed  place  of  duty  on  or  about  17  May  82,  and  being
disrespectful in language on or about 18 May 87 toward his superior
noncommissioned officer, who was in the execution of his office, by
saying to him “this is all the respect you are going  to  get  from
me” and “you think you’re tough,  don’t  you,”  or  words  to  that
effect.

After being advised of the nature of  his  case  by  an  evaluation
officer, the applicant elected not to appeal or submit  matters  in
writing.   The  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the   case   legally
sufficient and recommended a general  discharge  without  probation
and rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the  case  on
28 Jul 82 and directed a general discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 4 Aug 82, in the grade of airman, under
the provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of  “Misconduct  –  Frequent
Involvement of a Discreditable Nature” with  a  general  discharge.
He was issued an RE code of  2B  (involuntarily  separated  with  a
general  discharge).   He  served  on  active  duty  for  1   year,
10 months, and 4 days.

On 15 January 1986, the AFBCMR considered and denied an application
submitted by applicant requesting that  his  general  discharge  be
upgraded and his Reenlistment Eligibility  (RE)  code  be  changed.
For an accounting of the facts and  circumstances  surrounding  the
application, and the rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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  are  not  persuaded  that  the  narrative  reason  for
separation should be changed.   The  discharge  appears  to  be  in
compliance with the governing manual and we  find  no  evidence  to
indicate that his separation from the Air Force  was  inappropriate
or that it was based on any factors other than his own  misconduct.
  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis upon which  to  favorably  consider  applicant’s  request  to
change the narrative reason for his discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

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-1985-
03929 in Executive Session on 8 July 2004, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit E.  ROP, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-85-03929
    Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 04




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00632

    Original file (BC-2005-00632.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81, for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 29 Nov 83, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02409

    Original file (BC-2003-02409.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02409 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in her discharge processing. We see no evidence of an error in this case and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01881

    Original file (BC-2009-01881.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01881 INDEX CODE: A67.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01602

    Original file (BC-2007-01602.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 214 and his application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801328

    Original file (9801328.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The discharge complied with directives in effect at the time and records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that, while in the Air Force, he had frequent problems with the people who shared his barracks. DOUGLAS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03310

    Original file (BC-2004-03310.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Sep 96, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03875

    Original file (BC-2005-03875.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 03875 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUNE 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00805

    Original file (BC-2003-00805.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Several post-trial clemency evaluations were submitted and, while some recommendations were mixed, the majority recommended the trial recommendations of clemency be accepted. On 5 Dec 96, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB). In the attached statement, the applicant indicates he would appreciate an upgrade to a general discharge if honorable was not possible.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00874

    Original file (BC-2003-00874.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    It appears that prior to any legal action being taken by civilian authorities, the applicant was advised by his section commander that if he received a suspended sentence for the civilian offense of grand larceny for allegedly stripping an automobile, the Air Force would not impose any further punishment. It appears that he has had a clean record since that time. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01253

    Original file (BC-2006-01253.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    3) 19 Jan 82, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for violating Air Force Standards. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.