RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00463
INDEX CODE: 110.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 August 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was unfair and he completed education and training
requirements.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 29 August 1972.
On 26 April 1973, his commander notified him that he was recommending
he be discharged. The basis for the action was that on 1 March 1973,
he was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder best described
as passive-aggressive personality; on 2 April 1973, he received a
Letter of Reprimand for failure to maintain his room to the standards
of cleanliness and on 6 April 1973, he received an Article 15 for
dereliction in the performance of his duties and being disrespectful
in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer. He
acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge on 26 April
1973. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed
that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
Applicant was discharged on 27 April 1973, under the provisions of AFM
39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or
Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for
the Rehabilitation Program (unsuitability-character and behavior
disorder-individual evaluation), with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge. He served a total of 7 months and 29 days of
active duty service.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining
to the applicant, which is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided
no other facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.
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 the applicant on
18 Mar 05, for review and comment within 30 days. 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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 evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2005-
00463 in Executive Session on 4 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 1 Apr 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01012
On 24 July 1984, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct. As of this date, this office has received no response. As of this date, this office has received no response.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00745
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00745 INDEX CODE: 100.3, 100.06 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, narrative reason for separation and separation code be changed. On 20 November 1985, the applicant was notified...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01461
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, 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. Therefore, based on the available...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01278
He began to look for means to support his addiction for which he was convicted. Civilian court conviction consisted of confinement from 21 Feb 56 – 17 Mar 56 (36 days). On 10 Sep 69, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded and for a waiver to permit reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03339
He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS was unable to determine the propriety of the discharge based on the lack of documentation in the master personnel records. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00390
Applicant was discharged on 17 Jun 72, in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (unsuitability), and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He served on active duty for a period of 2 years, 9 months, and 26 days. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00430
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect he served in the Regular Air Force instead of the Air Force Reserves. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In regard...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00717
On 1 October 1992, applicant voluntarily submitted an AF Form 31, Airman's Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation requesting to be separated from active duty effective 5 December 1992. in Business Management and Economics.” On 5 December 1992, the applicant was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (voluntary - miscellaneous reasons), with an RE code of 3A and an honorable discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00076
He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service or his reenlistment eligibility code. In view of the foregoing, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from his narrative reason for separation. JOHN B. HENNESSEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00076 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03295
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03295 INDEX NUMBER: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 FEBRUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation, trial by court-martial, be changed. The narrative reason for separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) indicates...