RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01660
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His son’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The punishment his son received was excessive and unequal for the
offenses committed.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or discharge from Active Duty,
Certificate of Death, a Character Reference Letter, Letter of Support
from Chaplain, and DD Form 293, Application for the Review of
Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered into the Air Force on 2 April 1997. On 7 April
1998, his commander notified him, that he was recommending he be
discharged, under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 for
misconduct (discreditable involvement with military or civil
authorities). The basis for the action was that on 24 March 1998, he
was convicted by summary court-martial for one specification of being
absent without authority, and four specifications of failure to go and
received 30 days confinement; on 14 February 1998, failure to go at
the time prescribed, to his appointed place of duty and received a
Letter of Reprimand; on 27 January 1998, for unlawfully striking a
fellow airman and for failing to go at the time prescribed to his
appointed place of duty and received an Article 15, reduction to the
grade of airman basic and 30 days extra duty; on 27 January 1998, for
not cleaning his entire bathroom, especially the toilet and received a
Letter of Individual Counseling; on 15 January 1998, he failed to go
to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and received a
Letter of Reprimand; on 27 December 1997, he failed to go to his
appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and received a Letter
of Counseling; on 17 December 1997, he failed to go to his appointed
place of duty at the prescribed time and received a Letter of
Reprimand; on 3 December 1997, for insubordination and received a
Letter of Reprimand; on 22 November 1997, for not being prepared for
duty he received a Letter of Reprimand; on 16 October 1997, he failed
to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and
received a Letter of Individual Counseling; and on 1 October 1997, he
failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and
received a Letter of Reprimand. He did not acknowledge receipt of the
notification. The base legal office found the case was legally
sufficient to support discharge. He was discharged on 21 April 1998,
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, for Pattern of Misconduct, with a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served a total
5 years, 8 months and 27 days of active duty service.
The applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge
Review Board (DRB) requesting his son’s general (under honorable
conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 February 2001,
the DRB concluded a change in the type or nature of discharge was not
warranted. The DRB also concluded that the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority
and the member was provided full administrative due process. (Exhibit
B)
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFDRB previously reviewed all the evidence of record and concluded
the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of
the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full
administrative due process. The Board further concluded that neither
evidence of record, nor that provided by the member’s father
substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change
of discharge. The former member’s father did not submit any new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing. He provided no other facts warranting a change
to his character of service.
The 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
25 Jun 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record we believe that the issuance of a general discharge was harsh.
While the deceased member’s disciplinary problems warrant separation
from the Air Force, we believe that based on the overall
circumstances, an honorable discharge was warranted. We are persuaded
primarily by the two letters of support provided by the applicant,
particularly that of the Chaplain who had first-hand knowledge of the
applicant's situation during military service. We note also that the
Discharge Review Board voted 3-2 against upgrading of the member’s
discharge. In view of the above, we recommend granting the relief
sought in this application. Accordingly, we recommend that his
records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 21 April 1998, he
was discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-
01660 in Executive Session on 10 August 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Jun 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-01660
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 21 April 1998,
he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge
certificate.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Board Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01354
The applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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 DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00149
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00396
The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, four Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Admonishment and two Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct. The applicant had further misconduct and received an Article 15 and Vacation for failure to go to appointed place of duty on three separate occasions and failure to wear Chef Whites while perfomling duties at the dining facility. For your misconduct, you received a Record of Individual Counseling dated, 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01293
On 22 April 1998, his commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge due to his failure in Alcohol Abuse Treatment. The applicant was discharged effective 3 May 1998 with a honorable characterization of service, a separation code of HPD (Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure) and a reentry code of 2c (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge). On 20 June 2005, the Air Force Personnel Center Separations Branch issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02233
We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the uncharacterized entry-level separation received by the former member should be changed to an honorable discharge. Rather, as was noted by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the member has not yet completed six months of service at the time separation proceedings were, for whatever reason, initiated. However, after a thorough review of...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of the applicant’s discharge from active duty. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant has not provided any new evidence of error or injustice. The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and, absent...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00719
On 26 June 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that more than half of the Letters of Counseling occurred over a period of more than four years, and all dealt with reporting late to duty. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03646
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03646 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be upgraded from general (Under Honorable Conditions) to honorable and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to reenlist. She was given the opportunity to consult counsel...
AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2004-00289
Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH A1C) 1. (Atch 2) c. On 10 August 2003, you were derelict in the performance of your duties in that you willfully failed to refkin fiom burning incense in your dormitory room. If you fail to consult counsel or to submit statements in your own behalf, your failure will constitute a waiver of your right to do so.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00030
On 17 April 1972, the applicant’s commander forwarded the request to the group commander, recommending approval of the applicant’s request for discharge. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 17 days on active duty. The applicant has provided no evidence indicating the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.