RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00777
INDEX CODE: 23.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Sep 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was inequitable because it was the result of one
incident in eight years of active service, and there was no other
adverse action taken against him.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Feb 67 for
a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.
On 20 Mar 75, court-martial charges were preferred against him for ten
specifications of writing bad checks totaling $500.00.
On 17 Apr 75, he requested he be discharged for the good of the
service. He was furnished competent counsel and advised of his rights
in the matter.
On 21 Apr 75, the applicant’s commander recommended that his request
for discharge be approved and he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.
In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated 22 Apr 75, the
Staff Judge Advocate found the file was legally sufficient. He
recommended the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and he
be furnished an undesirable discharge.
On 23 Apr 75, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s
discharge and directed he be furnished an undesirable discharge.
On 28 Apr 75, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM
39-12 (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and
furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)
(Undesirable) discharge. He was credited with 8 years, 2 months, and
27 days of total active service.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
indicated that, on the basis of the data furnished, they are unable to
locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that based on the
documentation in the applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided
no facts warranting a change to his character of service.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 May
05 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
By letter, dated 14 Jun 05, the Board’s staff requested that the
applicant provide documentation pertaining to his activities since
leaving the service. As of this date, no response has been received
by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The evidence of record indicates
the applicant requested he be discharged for the good of the service
after court-martial charges were preferred against him for writing bad
checks. As a result, he was furnished an undesirable discharge. No
evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe the
applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of
the discharge directive under which it was effected. Furthermore, due
to the lack of documentation pertaining to the applicant’s post-
services activities, we do not find favorable action based on clemency
appropriate at this time. In view of the above, we conclude that no
basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request
that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2005-00777 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 05, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Negative FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 May 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jun 05, w/atch.
CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00704
They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting a change to his character of service. A complete copy of the 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 25 Mar 05 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00712
On 27 Mar 80, he was entered in the alcohol rehabilitation program. On 27 May 80, after consulting with an evaluation officer, applicant submitted statements in his own behalf, stating that the cause of his marginal performance was based on his alcohol problem; however, after further counseling from both military and civilian chaplains on matters concerning his problems, his eyes had been opened and with the proper counseling and treatment he could be an important asset to the Air Force. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02180
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 27 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administration Separation of Airman (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 Aug 84, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of Request for discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with service characterized as UOTHC. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01166
On 22 Nov 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of staff sergeant. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, 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. A complete copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00361
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). The majority of the Board finds no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, they do not believe the applicant has suffered an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 04, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00857
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00857 INDEX CODE: 110.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Sep 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). The discharge authority concurred and approved his request. We took notice...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02739
DPPRS indicates the applicant’s 5 October 2001 request for separation, effective 1 May 2002, was approved on 18 October 2001. Due to his second nonselection by the CY02A board, the applicant would have been given a mandatory separation date of 31 October 2002. Although the applicant requested an early separation date, this was still considered an involuntary separation based on the fact he was not selected for promotion to major for the second time.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02614
The base legal office reviewed the case, found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00421
On 11 May 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed all of the evidence of record and concluded that the applicant’s discharge should be changed to an honorable discharge. On 28 May 2004, applicant’s record was administratively corrected to reflect an honorable discharge, with a corresponding RE code of 2C (Exhibit B). Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.