RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03703
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:
He has been discharged over 15 years.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a portion of his DD Form
293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of
the United States, stating the reason for his request is because there
has been no other adverse actions against him in the past 21 years,
civil or otherwise.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 July 1980 in the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman on 29 January 1981, and
the grade of airman first class on 29 July 1981. 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. Bases for
the action were: (1) On 10 June 1983, he was convicted of attempted
larceny by the Municipal Court of the State of California, in and for
the County of Sacramento. (2) On 28 June 1982, he was counseled for
not having his dormitory room up to standards on 10, 17 and 24 June
1982. (3) On 20 October 1981, he received an Article 15 for driving
while drunk. The punishment consisted of reduction to airman and
forfeiture of $200.00 per month for two months, but the execution of
that portion which provided for reduction to the grade of airman was
suspended until 30 April 1982 at which time unless sooner vacated; it
would be remitted without further action. (4) On 16 October 1981, he
was counseled for not using his headlights on his private vehicle
while on base during a period of darkness and for illegally parking.
(5) On 10 September 1981, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for
financial irresponsibility. (6) On 19 August 1981, he was counseled
for financial irresponsibility. (7) On 24 March 1981, he received an
LOR for violating safety regulations by having cigarette butts and
ashes in the trash can in his dormitory room. Applicant acknowledged
receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with
legal counsel submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated
with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon receipt
of no less than an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support discharge and recommended acceptance of the
conditional waiver and applicant be discharged with an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation
(P&R). The discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver
request and directed that he be discharged with an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without P&R.
The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 23 November 1983
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(misconduct - civilian conviction), with an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge. He served 3 years, 3 months and 25 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 29 December 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 its 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 9 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Dec 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 04.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03504
On 2 August 1983, the discharge authority approved and directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). On 28 December 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation concerning his activities since leaving military service.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03504
On 2 August 1983, the discharge authority approved and directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). On 28 December 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation concerning his activities since leaving military service.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00556
On 7 September 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge because of his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. His commander appointed an evaluation officer who interviewed the applicant and reviewed his records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file the discharge was consistent with...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03532
The commander was recommending the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge based on the following: (1) On 10 April 1984, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 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 his request. Exhibit E. FBI Investigative Report.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03367
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 March 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 6 years. For this offense, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC). We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01888
c. On 3 October 1983, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to report. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the reasons that were stated for his discharge are not accurate. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2004-01888 in Executive Session on 21 October 2004, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03926
On 16 January 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending applicant for a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and recommended a general discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant’s requests his Reenlistment Eligibility code 2B “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge” be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserve. ...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00586
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which confirms the applicant’s admitted two DUI incidents and is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. ...
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.