Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00256
Original file (BC-2005-00256.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00256
            INDEX CODE:  A68.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should be upgraded to general.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  extracts  from  his
military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s  available  military  personnel   records   indicates   he
initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 82 for a  period
of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 17 Nov 86, the applicant was convicted by special court-martial  of
wrongfully using cocaine.  He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement  for
three months, forfeiture of $100.00 for three  months,  and  reduction
from the grade of airman first class to airman basic.   The  convening
authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

On 1 Jun 87, the approved sentence of the special court-martial having
been affirmed, the applicant’s discharge was ordered  into  execution.
He was discharged with a BCD on 30 Oct 87.  He  was  credited  with  5
years, 7 months, and 15 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial   indicating   that   based   on   the
documentation in the 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,
and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any  errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He  provided
no facts warranting a change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  18
Mar 05 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________
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 Staff
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of substantial 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00256 in Executive Session on 21 Apr 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02827

    Original file (BC-2005-02827.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Mar 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. Based on the documentation from the previous review by the AFDRB and the limited documentation on file in the master personnel record, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The Board noted the applicant’s prior honorable periods of service and his accomplishments...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02017

    Original file (BC-2003-02017.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    She provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant an upgrade of her discharge to general. Other than her own uncorroborated assertions, evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the action taken to affect her discharge from the Air Force was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03636

    Original file (BC-2002-03636.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 1 February 1985 by Special Court- Martial Order #1, dated 17 January 1985, with a BCD. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 February 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. It has been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02752

    Original file (BC-2005-02752.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 December 1982, for a period of four years in the grade of airman first class. On 19 Dec 86, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade of her discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03099

    Original file (BC-2005-03099.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03099 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 APR 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 12 Aug 88, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03533

    Original file (BC-2004-03533.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 June 2000, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. (Exhibit B) _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. We note that as an act of clemency the Air Force Discharge Review Board upgraded his discharge to honorable and changed the narrative reason for separation to secretarial authority.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02743

    Original file (BC-2005-02743.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was reported absent without leave from 26-28 April 1966 and 20-23 May 1966. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant (Identification Record No. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02837

    Original file (BC-2002-02837.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02164

    Original file (BC-2004-02164.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jul 04. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00776

    Original file (BC-2005-00776.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Mar 05. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.