RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01698
INDEX CODE: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he was retired, rather than
discharged.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was wrongly accused and not given a chance to prove himself. He
states that he volunteered to take a drug test himself.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 7 March 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4), effective and
with a date of rank of 1 January 1971. During this enlistment, he
received seven Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for the combined
rating period 7 March 1969 through 21 June 1973, in which the overall
evaluations were 8,6, 9, 9, 8, 8 and 3. He received one disciplinary
punishment on 10 July 1973 consisting of forfeiture of $50.00 per
month for two months on 6 June 1973 for striking another individual on
the chin with his fist. He was honorably discharged on 25 June 1974
under the provisions of AFM 39-10, involuntary discharge of first term
airman denied reenlistment. He had served 5 years, 3 months and 19
days on active duty.
On 25 September 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
in the grade of sergeant (E-4) for a period of 4 years. He continued
to enlist and serve on active duty, entering his last enlistment on 2
April 1985, when he reenlisted for a period of 4 years. He was
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), effective and with a
date of rank of 1 February 1979. Prior to his promotion to that
grade, he received six APRs, in which the overall evaluations were 8,
8, 6, 8, 8, and 7. Subsequent to his promotion to staff sergeant, for
the combined rating period 6 October 1978 through 14 September 1987,
he received 11 APRs, in which the overall evaluations were 8, 9, 9, 8,
9, 8, 8, 9, 8, 9, and 8.
On 15 April 1985, the applicant was entered into the Weight Management
Program. His entry weight was 238 pounds and his maximum allowable
weight was 212 pounds. During the course of his participation, he had
unsatisfactory weigh-ins in June, July, September, October and
December 1985, June, August and October 1986, and January, April and
July 1987.
On 4 June 1987, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he
was considering the imposition of nonjudicial punishment on him under
Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of marijuana on or about 13 April
1987. (Information maintained in the file indicates the charge was
based on a positive urinalysis for marijuana from a specimen provided
by the applicant on 13 April 1987.) The applicant was advised of his
rights. The applicant declined to consult counsel, accepted the
nonjudicial proceedings, and indicated he did not desire to make an
oral presentation to the commander or to submit written comments for
review. On 5 June 1987, the commander determined the applicant had
committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment on the applicant.
He was reduced in grade to sergeant (E-4) and was ordered to forfeit
$509.00 per month for two months. The applicant elected not to appeal
the punishment.
On 15 September 1987, applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR
39-10 for drug abuse and unsatisfactory performance in the Air Force
Weight Management Program. The applicant was advised of his rights.
The commander indicated that an other than honorable discharge was
possible and that a general discharge would be recommended. Applicant
acknowledged receipt of the notification on 15 September 1987. On
23 September 1987, after consulting legal counsel, applicant submitted
a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative
discharge board hearing contingent upon receipt of no less than an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The group staff judge
advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support
discharge action. This officer recommended separation with an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation (P&R). The group commander forwarded the case file for
further review with a recommendation that the proposed separation be
approved. In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 4
November 1987, the numbered Air Force staff judge advocate found the
file legally sufficient, recommended that the applicant’s conditional
waiver be accepted and suggested the separation authority adopt drug
abuse as the primary reason for discharge and that he be issued a
General Discharge certificate. The discharge authority accepted the
conditional waiver and, on 9 November 1987, directed an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge because of drug abuse without
P&R. The case was forwarded for lengthy service probation
consideration according to AFR 39-10, Section F, Chapter 6.
In a legal review of the file dated 23 November 1987, the Director of
Adverse Actions of the major air command recommended the case be
forwarded with a recommendation that the discharge be executed without
suspension for probation and rehabilitation. The major air commander
concurred with this recommendation. On 21 December 1987, the
Secretary of the Air Force directed that the approved administrative
discharge pursuant to AFR 39-10 be executed. The Secretary of the Air
Force denied lengthy service probation.
The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 11 January 1988
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(misconduct – drug abuse), with an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge. He served 18 years 7 months and 7 days on active
duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation. Additionally, 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.
AFPC/DPPRRP states in order to qualify for retirement, 10 USC 8914
requires that an enlisted member of the Air Force have at least 20
years of total active federal military service (TAFMS). In this
applicant’s case, he did not have at least 20 years of TAFMS when he
received an administrative discharge. Therefore, they recommend
denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 1 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 opinions and recommendations 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. We
note, in accordance with 10 USC 8914, the applicant had insufficient
total active federal military service (TAFMS) to qualify for
retirement. In addition, we note he was denied lengthy service
continuation by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF). 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 6 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Jun 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 18 Jun 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03040
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03040 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was retired. An administrative discharge board was convened on 6 May, 2 July, 21 and 22 July 1980 and determined the applicant would be discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00213
On 1 May 1987, the applicant requested voluntary separation from active duty under Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 3-19, for hardship. The applicant, by virtue of having over 20 years TAFMS on 1 June 1987, could have requested a waiver (for hardship reasons) of his promotion ADSC in accordance with AFR 35-7, Service Retirements, in order to retire rather than separate on that date. Now the applicant believes the Board should correct his military records, in the interest of...
On 18 Apr 86, after consulting counsel, applicant offered a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less than an honorable discharge. His military service was properly reviewed and appropriate action was taken (see Exhibit D). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00990
Because the applicant had over 16 years TAFMS at the time the discharge board recommended his discharge for misconduct, the applicant was eligible to request lengthy service consideration from the SAF. DPPRRP concludes the applicant submitted no new additional evidence that there was an error or injustice in the discharge proceedings or in lengthy service consideration. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
On 7 July 1961, the discharge authority approved the recommendation of the discharge board and directed the applicant’s discharge. At the time of the discharge board, the only evidence considered was his personal statement. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02928
The Board recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance/exceeding weight standards with an honorable discharge, but that he be offered probation and rehabilitation opportunities with a conditional suspension of the discharge. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating testimony of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00675
Section 1176, Enlisted Members: Retention After Completion of 18 or More, but Less than 20 Years of Service, 10 USC, stated, in part, that a regular enlisted member who is selected to be involuntarily separated, or whose term of enlistment expires and who is denied reenlistment, and who on the date on which the member is to be discharged is within two years of qualifying for retirement, shall be retained on active duty until the member is qualified for retirement, unless the member is sooner...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00060
At the time of his discharge, there were no provisions of law that allowed for retirement with less than 20 years of active service. AFPC/DPPRRP complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s spouse reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that the discharge processing was probably handled properly, however, there has been a grave injustice committed...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01943
He was discharged on 7 January 1976 with a dishonorable discharged. The law that governs retirement of an enlisted member, in 1973, 1976 and today is 10 USC, section 8914 which requires an enlisted member of the Air Force to have at least 20 years Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) in order to qualify for retirement. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0178
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0178 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2002-0178 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former SSGT) (HGH TSGT) 1. FD2002-0178 Specification 2: Did, at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, on or about 3 Dec 92, steal lawful currency, of a value of $750.00, the property of the Civilian Distinguished...