RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01253
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions
(general) discharge and his DD Form 214 be corrected to show he had no
lost time.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not realize he could get his DD Form 214 corrected or his
discharge upgraded because he was young at the time and did not
realize what he was signing.
Applicant did not submit any documents in support of the appeal.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 July 1978 in the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman, effective and with a
date of rank of 5 January 1979, and airman first class, effective and
with a date of rank of 5 July 1979. He received two Airman
Performance Reports (APRs) closing 17 July 1979 and 17 July 1980 in
which the overall evaluations were “9” and “4.”
On 25 November 1980, applicant was tried before a special court-
martial on charges of using and possessing lysergic acid diethylamide
(LSD). He was found guilty and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge,
confinement at hard labor for 30 days, forfeiture of $250 per month
for two months, and reduction to the rank of airman basic. He was
discharged on 18 August 1981. He served 3 years, 1 month and 14 days
on active duty. His separation document indicated time lost was
“unknown.”
On 11 May 2004, the applicant was informed that there was an error on
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,
and a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty, has been completed to his DD Form 214
to show he had 1 year, 8 months and 24 days of foreign service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states that 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 evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did he
provide any facts warranting an upgrade in his character of service.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/JA recommends denial of applicant’s request. AFPC/DPPAOR
indicates that “A complete review of applicant’s UPRG has been
accomplished and there was no lost time recorded.” Therefore, they
have no objection to the correction of applicant’s DD Form 214 to show
no lost time.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 9 July 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 this application in
Executive Session on 25 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 May 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 Jun 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 04.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00992
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00992 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETTION DATE AUGUST 5, 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable; his special court-martial conviction be overturned and removed from his personal records; his narrative reason...
The evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that they find no documentation to support the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2P, “Absent without leave (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR).” However, based on documentation and member’s narrative reason for separation “marginal performer” they recommend the applicant’s code be changed to 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” which they feel...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01255
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 February 1951, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years. On 12 December 1955, the former member submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03639
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. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02269
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D & E). The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation 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 the applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00139
Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel requests the applicant’s case be reviewed and considered for...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02746
The Discharge Authority approved his discharge and ordered a general discharge. Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03596
Headquarters 5th Air Force legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service be approved and he be discharged in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 19 January 2005, the applicant provided a letter stating none of the incidents were facts. The only incident that should be on this report is number 2, and by law that must be cleaned off in July.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03907
On 4 March 1980, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to report to his duty section at the prescribed time. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03004
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03004 INDEX CODE: 100.03 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Item 6 of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect her Reserve Obligation Termination Date of 19 February 2006, rather than...