RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01798
INDEX NUMBERS: A01.03 & 110.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has never experimented or taken illegal drugs. The airman driving the
car he was in handed him the drugs and asked him to throw them out.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 10 March
1971, for a period of four years. On 13 October 1972, he was apprehended
by the Washington State Police and was charged with possession of an
undetermined amount of mescaline, 7 grams of marijuana, and alcohol. He
was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and
possession of intoxicants by civil authorities. He was placed in civil
confinement from 13 to 16 October 1972. During a medical evaluation on
20 October 1972, he admitted to daily use of marijuana for enjoyment,
frequent use of mescaline and Lysergic acid diethyl amide (LSD), and
experimentation with amphetamines and barbiturates. He was offered drug
rehabilitation on 27 October 1972, but refused to enter the program. On
6 November 1972, the commander notified him that he was being recommended
for discharge due to his misconduct, i.e., civil conviction for possession
of a controlled substance and possession of intoxicants, and his refusal to
enter drug rehabilitation. He received a general discharge on 4 December
1972, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section a, paragraph 2-
4c. He completed a total of 1 year, 8 months and 25 days of active
service, which excludes four days lost time (civil confinement 13 - 16 Oct
72). He was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the time
of discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, 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 has not submitted any evidence or
identified 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:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 1 July 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 a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief
should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted. However, the
office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed his contentions
and we agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, 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-2004-01798
in Executive Session on 17 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 May 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jun 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
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 | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00087
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant upgrading his RE code. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04109
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). However, as of this date, this office has received no response. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02560
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02560 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated to active duty or, in the alternative, be granted a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code that will allow her to enter the Reserves. On 23 Jun 04, the CCQ recommended to the training...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02867
On 24 Feb 97, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the 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 15 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days. Based on his overall record of service, the contents of the FBI...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03703
He received four Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 28 July 1981, 18 July 1982, 3 February 1983 and 26 August 1983, in which the overall evaluations were “9,” “9,” “9,” and “8.” On 16 September 1983, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03242
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has been afflicted with the disease of alcoholism and substance abuse since he was 14 years old. On 20 April, 13 May, and 14 September, the member wrongfully possessed marijuana and received three letters of reprimand. 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 | 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),...