RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03639
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Throughout the processing of his discharge, there was always a lack of
legal representation on the base. As a result, all of his legal advice was
received over the phone.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7
June 1974. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 December 1980.
On 6 August 1982, the applicant received notification that he was being
recommended for discharge for drug abuse. The commander’s reasons for the
action were the two Article 15s the applicant received for wrongfully
possessing marijuana on 21 August 1979 and 18 June 1982, unlawfully
striking a special agent of the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and
failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; and
the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) he received for assaulting his wife. The
commander approved his waiver of his rights to an administrative discharge
board hearing contingent upon his receipt of a general discharge. He
received a general discharge on 29 October 1982, under the provisions of
AFM 39-12 (Misconduct Drug Abuse - Board Waiver). He had completed a total
of 8 years, 4 months, and 23 days of active service. He was serving in the
grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge
authority. The applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any
errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief
should be granted. In this respect, we note the discharge appears to be in
compliance with the governing manual in effect at the time of his
separation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the
Air Force was inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and
after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in
support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an
injustice. 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
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-2003-03639
in Executive Session on 4 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary Johnson, Member
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Dec 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03571
On 31 July 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request to upgrade his discharge. The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03699
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice concerning the applicant’s RE code. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction. It appears his discharge was in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction in effect at the time of his separation and that he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00906
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02860
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-03592
On 28 December 1990, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 35-10, Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, with an honorable discharge. On 28 December 1990 the applicant submitted a conditional waiver to an administrative review board contingent on receiving no less than an honorable discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03882
The reason for the commander’s recommendation was the applicant’s evaluation and diagnosis by the Behavioral Analysis Service with Axis I: Phase of Life Problem, maladjustment to military service, disqualifying severity. At the time the applicant was evaluated and diagnosed by mental health personnel with the unsuiting condition leading to his discharge, the evaluating psychiatrist noted that the applicant was “experiencing a temporary problem that should be “resolvable” within the next six...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02938
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02938 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. Based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02481
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received an honorable discharge and asks that his records be reviewed towards that end. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03877
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of a letter from his squadron commander to the wing staff judge advocate, dated 25 Jun 01, outlining why the applicant did not meet retention requirements. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01523
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...