Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02988
Original file (BC-2004-02988.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02988
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to allow him to enlist into the Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his service, he was unfortunately married  to  a  woman  that
liked to write bad checks.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  19
June 1986.  On 30 March 1987, he received notification  that  he  was  being
recommended for discharge for misconduct - minor  disciplinary  infractions.
The commander’s reasons for the  action  were  applicant’s  receipt  of  six
letters of reprimand for failing to go at the time prescribed to  his  place
of duty on three  separation  occasions;  uttering  13  different  worthless
checks to the base exchange, totaling $1,258.36; operating a  motor  vehicle
without having a driver’s license in his possession; and operating  a  motor
vehicle without having safe tires on the vehicle;  and  an  Article  15  for
failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place  of  duty.   The
discharge authority  approved  the  discharge  and  he  received  a  general
discharge on 22 April 1987, under the provisions of AFR 39-10  (Misconduct),
and was issued RE code 2B (Involuntarily separated with a general or  under-
other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC)  discharge).   He  had  completed  a
total of 10 months and 4 days of active  service  and  was  serving  in  the
grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
applicant’s discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority.  Applicant has not submitted any  evidence  of  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his  discharge,  nor
provided facts warranting a change to his character of service.

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 8 October 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 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  the  applicant’s
discharge  appears  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  governing  Air  Force
Regulation 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  his  separation  was  inappropriate.   There  being   insufficient
evidence to the contrary, 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-2004-02988
in Executive Session on 17 November 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                       Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02395

    Original file (BC-2004-02395.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 October 1975, the Numbered AF commander approved the discharge, without P&R. On 6 December 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded. At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01547

    Original file (BC-2004-01547.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01547 INDEX NUMBER: 121.03 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 19.5 days of leave be restored to his leave balance. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPF recommends 17.5 days of leave be restored to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02598

    Original file (BC-2004-02598.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 Sep 01, the applicant submitted a response to the discharge authority requesting he be retained or discharged with an honorable discharge. Based on their review of the documentation in the master personnel record, they determined the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Contrary to this assertion, one serious military or civilian offense may be a basis for discharge for misconduct.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00149

    Original file (BC-2004-00149.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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-2004-02375

    Original file (BC-2004-02375.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02375 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his discharge from the Air Force be changed from “Misconduct” to “Convenience of the Government.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03758

    Original file (BC-2005-03758.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    (3) On 5 June 1989, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for reporting for duty over two hours late. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on her request. Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 24 Jan 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03577

    Original file (BC-2005-03577.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge section at the personnel office said he could request an upgrade to honorable after one year of being separated. On 4 February 1988, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01381

    Original file (BC-2004-01381.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Dec 72, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged without P&R, and that he be issued a DD Form 257AF, General Discharge Certificate. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 May 04. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02587

    Original file (BC-2004-02587.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02587 INDEX NUMBER: 135.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) beginning with the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board. Additionally,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02474

    Original file (BC-2004-02474.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, dated 25 Jan 74. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPRFQ, dated 6 Oct 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.