Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02039
Original file (BC-2004-02039.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02039
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant made no contentions.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 293,
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal  from  the  Armed
Forces of the United States.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 February 1987 for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
airman on 24 August 1987.  He received one Airman  Performance  Report
(APR) closing 23 February 1988, in which the  overall  evaluation  was
“6.”

On 16 February 1989, applicant’s commander notified him  that  he  was
recommending his discharge for a pattern of misconduct and  commission
of a serious offense.  Basis for the action:  Applicant  received  two
Letters of Reprimand (LORs), five Records  of  Counseling  (ROCs),  an
establishment of  an  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF),  and  two
Articles 15 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, with his
dress and appearance in violation of AFR 35-10 on  one  occasion.   He
received two LORs for failure to meet minimum standards of cleanliness
in his dormitory room.  He received two more LORs and  was  placed  on
the  Control  Roster  for  unsatisfactory  progress  on   the   Weight
Management Program (WMP).  In the timeframe of  23  December  1988  to
29 January 1989, he issued 24 bad checks to three stores.   Twenty  of
these checks, totalling the amount of $740.13, were  returned  due  to
his account being closed, and four, totalling the  amount  of  $97.07,
were returned for insufficient funds.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of notification of discharge and  after
consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to  submit  statements
in his own behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case  file  and
found it legally sufficient to support the discharge  and  recommended
an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  without  probation
and  rehabilitation  (P&R).   The  discharge  authority  approved  the
separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 9 March  1989  under
the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct - pattern discreditable involvement with military or civil
authorities), with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge.
He served 1 year, 11 months and 17 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states, 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.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 August 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 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 16 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Aug 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.




                             MARILYN M. THOMAS
                             Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01950

    Original file (BC-2006-01950.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 July 1989, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02740

    Original file (BC-2004-02740.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02740 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 June 1986 in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02590

    Original file (BC-2004-02590.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02590 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 November 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03695

    Original file (BC-2004-03695.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without P&R. Items 11, 10 and 9 had to do with reading the newspaper on duty. Prior to being under Sergeant Z---‘s command, he enjoyed the military and working with patients, which he still does today.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03404

    Original file (BC-2006-03404.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 January 1989, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. On 18 February 1988, the applicant received a No-Show Letter for failing to report for a scheduled appointment on 11 January 1988. p. On 18 February 1988, the applicant received a UIF entry for his delinquent account with the NCO Club. In regard to the RE code, the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the assigned RE code was in error or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02813

    Original file (BC-2004-02813.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and change of reason for discharge on 27 February 1992. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states 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. We have reviewed the statements provided; however, we...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00862

    Original file (BC-2004-00862.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 January 1987, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for exceeding weight standards. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). Based on the evidence of record, it appears the applicant was provided with every opportunity available to comply with the Air Force weight standards; however, he failed to do so.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00623

    Original file (BC-2006-00623.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. As of this date, this office has received no response. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01818

    Original file (BC-2004-01818.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On March 8, 1990, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In his response dated 24 October 2004, he provided a personal statement, and a copy of his separation document, four (4) character reference letters, and duplicate copies of his awards and citations previously submitted with his original application (Exhibit E). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02604

    Original file (BC-2005-02604.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 April 1990, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and recommended a general discharge based on the following: (1) On 19 March 1990, he was evaluated for alcohol abuse. On 8 May 1990, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (minor disciplinary infractions), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman. ...