Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02385
Original file (BC-2005-02385.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02385
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 FEB 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young, immature and entered the military after  his  father’s  death.
He has been a good citizen since his discharge and believes  he  served  his
country well.

In support of his request, applicant provided DD Form 293,  Application  for
the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed  Forces  of  the  United
States.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered into the Air Force on 20 December 1968, for a term  of
four years.  On 23 January 1970, his commander notified  him,  that  he  was
recommending  he  be  discharged,  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  disorders  -  individual
evaluation), general (under honorable conditions)  discharge.

The basis for the action was that a psychiatric evaluation of the  applicant
revealed  a  diagnosis  of  emotionally   unstable   personality,   passive-
aggressive type; he received an Article 15 for failure  to  comply  with  an
order given  by  his  squadron  commander  and  failure  to  repair  and  he
expressed an intense dislike for the Air Force and his  attitude  frequently
created an  unfavorable  morale  problem  among  the  other  airman  in  the
squadron.

He acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification  of  the  discharge.   On  17
February 1970, the applicant was interviewed by an  evaluation  officer  and
advised of his rights under the provisions of AFM 39-12  and  his  right  to
submit a rebuttal to the discharge action.   Applicant  stated  he  did  not
desire to submit a rebuttal and he wanted to be discharged from the  service
as soon as possible.   The  evaluation  officer  recommended  the  applicant
receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.   The  base  legal
office found the case was legally sufficient to support discharge.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed  the  applicant
be discharged with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.   He
was separated on 27 February 1970, and issued  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.  The applicant served 1 year, 3 months, and  13  days
on active duty.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 20 October 2005, that on the basis of the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record.  (See 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  facts
warranting an upgrade in his discharge to honorable.

The 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 23  Sep
2005, 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  an  error  or  injustice.   We  find  no  impropriety  in  the
characterization of applicant's  discharge.   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  which  entitled  at  the
time of  discharge.   The  only  other  basis  upon  which  to  upgrade  his
discharge would be clemency.   However,  applicant  has  failed  to  provide
documentation pertaining to his post service activities.  Should he  provide
documentary evidence pertaining to his post service activities we  would  be
willing to  reconsider  his  appeal.   In  the  absence  of  such  evidence,
favorable action is not recommended.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 8 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  FBI Report, dated 20 Oct 05.





                                             KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01032

    Original file (BC-2005-01032.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01032 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 SEP 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D). As...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01673

    Original file (BC-2005-01673.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 13 Oct 78 9 31 May 79 9 31 May 80 9 28 Sep 80 9 21 Jun 81 9 14 Dec 81 6 On 29 December 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty in the grade of sergeant (E-4), with an RE code of “2C,” which indicates the applicant was separated under the provisions of AFM 39-12. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the documentation in the applicant’s file, they believe his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02091

    Original file (BC-2003-02091.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the recommendation for discharge, the commander noted the psychiatrist and Social Actions Officer reported the applicant was a drug abuser who had reported use of marijuana, mescaline, and LSD. At the time of his mental health evaluation, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and was determined to know right from wrong and possess the capacity to conform his behavior to law and Air Force regulations. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01342

    Original file (BC-2005-01342.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01342 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANATORY COMPLETION DATE: 23 OCTOBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) for injuries received at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00714

    Original file (BC-2005-00714.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged effective 24 July 1970 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He served 3 years, 7 months, and 14 days of active duty. On 7 December 1973, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his characterization of discharge to honorable.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00745

    Original file (BC-2005-00745.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02745

    Original file (BC-2005-02745.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 69, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 24 Dec 70, in the grade of airman, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00261

    Original file (BC-2005-00261.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his rank of SSgt be restored. Additionally, the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contentions of sexual discrimination. The applicant has provided no evidence with successfully disputes HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s interpretation of the regulation or showing that he was unjustly treated in regards to his rank at the time of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00390

    Original file (BC-2004-00390.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2005-02333

    Original file (BC-2005-02333.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Every time he started to drink, he ended up in trouble. The applicant was separated from the Air Force 10 September 1953 under the provisions of AFR 39-18, Enlisted Personnel Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge and Special Court-Martial Order Number 23, with a bad conduct discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...