RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00315
INDEX NUMBERS: 110.00 & A60.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His conduct that resulted in his discharge was the result of the personal
problems he was experiencing.
After completing basic training, he married; however, his wife ran off with
another airman. He then began drinking heavily and turned to drugs. Prior
to this, he was somewhat of a good airman.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 12
June 1978. On 4 February 1982, the commander notified him that he was
being recommended for discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable
nature with civil and military authorities. The bases for the proposed
action were as follows:
a. On 24 May 1980, the applicant received an Armed Forces Traffic
ticket for parking in a reserved space.
b. On 10 August 1980, he received an Armed Forces Traffic ticket
for driving with an expired tag.
c. On 25 January 1981, he was apprehended for wrongful possession
of marijuana and exceeding the speed limit, for which he received an
Article 15, dated 4 February 1981, resulting in reduction to the grade of
airman, restriction to the limits of XXXX AFB for 30 days, 30 consecutive
days of extra duties, and forfeiture of $100.00 pay for two months, all of
which was served concurrently. In addition, on 4 March 1981, he was placed
into the Drug Rehabilitation program.
d. On 27 April 1981, he was apprehended for reckless driving in
XXXX, and found guilty in XXXX Court on 13 April 1981 (sic).
e. On 1 May and 22 May 1981, he failed to report for scheduled
appointments at Social Actions, for which he received verbal counselings.
f. On 19 August 1981, he reported to his place of duty with his
face not cleanly shaven in violation of AFR 35-10, Table 8-1.
g. On 19 August and 21 August 1981, he failed to go to his
appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, for which he received an
Article 15, dated 26 August 1981, resulting in reduction to the grade of
airman, forfeiture of $100.00 pay, and ordered to perform 14 days of extra
duties, of which the grade reduction and forfeiture of pay were suspended
for six months.
h. On 13 October 1981, he was apprehended for driving with a
suspended license in XXXX, and ordered to pay $62.50 in XXXX Court.
i. On 11 January 1982, he failed to go to his appointed place of
duty at the time prescribed, for which he received an Article 15, dated
22 January 1982, and the suspended punishment as a result of the Article
15, dated 26 August 1981, was vacated.
He was discharged on 15 March 1982, under the provisions of AFM 39-12
(Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature). He
completed a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 3 days of active service and
was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.
A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
19 Sep 79 8
19 Sep 80 7
15 Apr 81 8
3 Feb 82 6
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at
Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
based on the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and
within the discretion of the discharge authority. Furthermore, the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He was doing well in the Air Force until he came home and found his wife in
bed with another airman, whom she eventually married. He then began
drinking, showing up late for work, and basically quit caring. His heart
was broken after his first love was unfaithful. Since his discharge he has
obtained his associate’s degree in math and computer science. However, no
one wanted to hire an ex-con and someone that had been discharged other
than honorably. He applied for, and received clemency on his right to bear
arms, voter’s registration, and concealed weapons license. In addition, he
has remarried and owns two homes. He has been drug free for over 17 years.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
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 that the
applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air
Force Manual 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 that his separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant recommending the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered the
applicant’s overall quality of service and the events that precipitated the
discharge. Applicant has not provided sufficient information of post-
service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that he has
overcome the behavioral traits which caused the discharge. Should he
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to
his 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-2004-00315
in Executive Session on 10 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. FBI Investigative Report.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03587
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-03587 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 October 1982, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Section A,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00140
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 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00935
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge on 21 October 1987 and understood if the recommendation for discharge was approved, he could receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the conditional waiver be accepted and applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00406
On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. On 23 Dec 58, the discharge authority approved a general discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 257AF, “General Discharge.” On 31 Dec 58, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16, with service characterized as under honorable conditions. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02427
On 3 Jun 82, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to general or honorable. On 30 Aug 82, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board (see Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In the applicant’s response to the evaluation,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00148
On 18 October 1957, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. He had served 2 years and 24 days on active duty. Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04056
On 26 November 1956, the discharge authority approved the discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge effective 5 December 1956. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report were forwarded to the applicant on 7 March 2003 and 3 April 2003 for review and comment (Exhibits D and F). In our opinion, the cited statements are not of a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02153
Based on the limited documentation in the applicant’s file, they found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time of his discharge. The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Aug 03 for review and comment within...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00361
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). The majority of the Board finds no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, they do not believe the applicant has suffered an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 04, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02091
In the recommendation for discharge, the commander noted the psychiatrist and Social Actions Officer reported the applicant was a drug abuser who had reported use of marijuana, mescaline, and LSD. At the time of his mental health evaluation, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and was determined to know right from wrong and possess the capacity to conform his behavior to law and Air Force regulations. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.