RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04109
INDEX NUMBERS: A67.10
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The incident leading to his discharge was his only misconduct in a 24-month
period.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 16
November 1979. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior
airman, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 October 1982. On 24
October 1985, the commander notified him that he was being recommended for
discharge due to conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The
bases for the action were that on 2 August 1985, the applicant failed to
obey a lawful order to submit to a Blood Alcohol Test (BAT), unlawfully
struck his wife in the head with his fist, and was drunk and disorderly,
for which he received an Article 15, dated 28 August 1985; and that on 18
February 1984, he operated a motor vehicle while drunk, for which he
received an Article 15, dated 14 March 1984. He received a general
discharge on 7 November 1985, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct
- Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline). He completed
a total of 5 years, 11 months and 17 days of active service and was serving
in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the time of discharge. He
received an RE Code of 2B (separated with a general or under-other-than-
honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant has not
submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that
occurred in the discharge processing.
The AFPC/DPPPRS 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 2 February 2004 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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no
evidence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note the applicant’s
discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation in
effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to
which entitled. The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate his
separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2003-04109
in Executive Session on 1 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Dec 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Feb 04.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01344
The discharge action against the applicant was suspended on 11 Oct 02 in order to process the applicant’s retirement request. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE INFORMATION: SAFPC previously considered and recommended denial of the applicant’s request to retire. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03504
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03504 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with palm device, and the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Professional Military Education (PME) Graduate ribbon. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03191
Since the applicant was discharged on 6 November 1945, he is not eligible for the CAR. The AFPC/DPPPR 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 and his counsel on 6 February 2004 for review and response within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03674
The PH is awarded for wounds received as a direct result of enemy actions (i.e., gunshot or shrapnel wounds, hand-to-hand combat wounds, forced aircraft bail out injuries, etc.). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the applicant’s retirement orders indicate that his disability was the direct result of a combat related injury, his injuries were caused by an...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01492
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should receive the PH for injuries incurred as a direct result of a combat mission, under enemy fire, in a combat zone. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant’s records do not provide conclusive evidence that the injury he incurred on 28 April 1963 was the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-04071
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04071 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Achievement Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM, 1 OLC), awarded for the period 24 April 1999 to 23 April 2001, be upgraded to an Air Force Commendation Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 2 OLC),...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-00256
On 17 Apr 69, after consulting with counsel, applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service. Based on the documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01538
Therefore, the following information has been extracted from the documentation provided by applicant. Regardless, although the Eighth Air Force had an established policy from 1942 to 1944, whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 25 heavy bomber missions, in 1944, the total number of missions for award of a DFC was increased from 25 to 35. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-01538 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03507
On 7 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable. They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence that the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper or...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03192
He was awarded the Purple Heart (PH) on 8 April 1945, for wounds received in the ETO on 24 March 1945. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 March 2004 for review and response. The applicant was awarded the PH on 8 April 1945, for wounds he received during a forced aircraft bail out on 24 March 1945.