RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02136
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was young and foolish. He served in the Air Force honorably.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
14 July 1981 and progressed to the grade of airman first class.
On 2 July 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that he
was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Air Force
Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance. The commander
recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge based on the following:
(1) On 27 November 1981, he received a Letter of Reprimand for
being 3 hours late for work.
(2) On 26 June 1984, he received a Letter of Reprimand for
financial irresponsibility.
(3) On 29 December 1983, he received a Letter of Reprimand for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 December 1983 to 21
December 1983.
(4) On 28 June 1984, he received an Article 15 for uttering a
check for $100.00 to the Airman’s Club with insufficient funds in the
bank.
(5) On 10 July 1984, he received an Article 15 for failure to
go.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and
consulted counsel but waived his right to submit statements in his own
behalf. On 30 July 1984, the recommendation was found legally
sufficient for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and no
probation and rehabilitation.
On 3 August 1984, the applicant was involuntarily discharged under the
provisions of AFR 39-10, (Unsatisfactory Performance) with service
characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of
airman first class. He served 3 years, and 20 days of total
active military service.
_________________________________________________________________
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 evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no
facts warranting a change to his character.
AFPC/DPPRS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 19 November 2004, for review and comment 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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his
discharge. The records reflect the commander initiated administrative
actions based on information he determined to be reliable and that
administrative actions were properly accomplished. The applicant was
afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation. We are not
persuaded by the evidence presented that the commander abused his
discretionary authority when he initiated the discharge action. The
only other basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of his discharge
would be clemency. However, applicant has failed to provide
documentation pertaining to his post service conduct. Should he
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting
to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful
post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case
based on the new evidence. Therefore, in the absence of this
documentation, 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 probable 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-
02136 in Executive Session on 15 September 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Aug 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03503
On 15 June 1984, applicant's commander recommended discharge for drug abuse. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01855
On 19 August 1987, AFDRB denied the applicant’s request for upgrade and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file; the discharge...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02136
On 25 April 1982, he was honorably discharged from the Army Reserve for completion of required service. On 1 December 1986, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He has changed over the years and he wants the chance to correct his mistakes.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01983
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01983 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
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-2005-02604
On 4 April 1990, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and recommended a general discharge based on the following: (1) On 19 March 1990, he was evaluated for alcohol abuse. On 8 May 1990, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (minor disciplinary infractions), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01960
Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02254
On 2 January 1992, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct-civil conviction. On 6 January 1992, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Civil Conviction and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 9 April 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied his application and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00427
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...