RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04098
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:
No error occurred in his discharge, but he is requesting an upgrade to
honorable.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered into the Air Force on 24 July 1963. On
14 October 1965, he was notified by his commander, that he was
recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16. The
basis for this action was his defective attitude and inability to
expend effort constructively. He acknowledged receipt of notification
for discharge, on 14 October 1965. On 21 October 1965, he declined to
rebut the recommendation for discharge and declined to submit
statements in his behalf. The base legal office found the case was
legally sufficient to support discharge. On 21 October 1965, the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16, and
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served
a total of two years, three months, and six days of active duty
service.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 27 February 2004, that on the basis of
the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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.
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided
no other facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.
The AFPC/DPPRS 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 6
Feb 04, for review and comment 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 an error or injustice to warrant changing his general
(under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. We find no
impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge. It
appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in
effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that
pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. We
conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing
circumstances.
4. The applicant appears to have requested that his discharge be
upgraded based on clemency consideration. However, applicant has not
provided sufficient information of post-service activities and
accomplishments for us to conclude that applicant has overcome the
behavioral traits, which caused the discharge. Should applicant
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting
to applicant's good character and reputation and other evidence of
successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider
this case based on the new evidence. We cannot, however, recommend
approval based on the current evidence of record.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
04098 in Executive Session on 30 March 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03964
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03964 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A...
DPPRS stated that, based upon the documentation in the file, applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority. We thoroughly reviewed applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and we find the evidence of record supports his discharge for misconduct (pattern of minor disciplinary infractions). We have noted the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00467
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00467 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 AUGUST 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He was reduced to the grade of airman basic with a date of rank of 20 September...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03917
On 14 February 1974, he requested discharge for the good of the service. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed and considered the applicant’s case for change of his discharge and concluded that a change was not warranted. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00289
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00289 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 JULY 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02794
On 4 February 2004, a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty was issued to the applicant changing the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, but denial of the RE code change request. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01130
Had he known a twice nonselect for promotion and subsequent involuntary separation would have precluded him from ever becoming an officer in the military again, including the National Guard, he would never have waited for the second nonselect. The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 1991A (CY91A) and CY92C promotion boards. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00519
He had served 2 years, 4 months and 26 days on active duty. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). He then took a job driving a paver for a construction company and also worked part- time doing security.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01138
He completed a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 26 days of active service and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge. In view of this, and since the applicant demonstrated his ability to lose weight in the initial phase of the WMP, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02041
On or about 26 July 2000, he changed his response to this question to a “yes” on his security questionnaire. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this case and recommended denial. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the RE code issued at the time of separation was accurate.