RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02649
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During the time he was stationed at Upper Heyford England, he was
going through a divorce in South Carolina. He had been threatened by
his spouse that she would never let him see his child again. His
request for leave to come back state side was repeatedly turned down
(3 times) by the officer-in-charge, Lt V.__. He just wanted to save
his life and continue to worked hard to support his child.
In support of his application, applicant provided a copy of DD Form
214, Contractor Certification Basic Training package, resume,
background check, Department of Homeland Security Training
Certificate, Department of Transportation Security Force Training
Certificates, The National Rifle Association of America Training
Certificates, a letter of appreciation, and personal references.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
30 March 1977 for a term of 4 years. He was progressively promoted to
the grade of sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a
date of rank of 1 September 1979.
On 2 April 1985, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for discreditable
involvement with military or civil authorities. The commander was
recommending the applicant receive a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge based on the following:
(1) On 17 January 1984, the applicant received a Record of
Counseling for failure to perform task in proper sequence.
(2) On 27 February 1984, the applicant received a Record of
Counseling for failure to monitor the B-3500 computer.
(3) On 23 March 1984, the applicant received a Record of
Counseling for failure to take proper action when a reject occurred
and to make notification to the Air Force Data System Design Center.
(4) On 6 April 1984, the applicant received a Record of
Counseling for failure to run an “End” card to affect proper transfer
over to the secondary prior to end of day report.
(5) On 1 July 1984, the applicant received an AAFES overdue
notice concerning his Deferred Payment Plan.
(6) On 12 July 1984, the applicant received a Record of
Counseling for loading an excessive amount of status input cards into
the reader.
(7) On 6 September 1984, the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand for failure to report for duty at the time prescribed.
(8) On 12 September 1984, the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand for failure to report to a mandatory Social Actions
substance abuse appointment.
(9) On 20 September 1984, the applicant received a letter of
counseling for dishonored checks.
(10) On 20 September 1984, the applicant received an overdue
notice concerning his AAFES Deferred Payment Plan.
(11) On 20 October 1984, the applicant received an overdue
notice concerning his AAFES Deferred Payment Plan.
(12) On 7 December 1984, the applicant was placed on the control
roster for financial irresponsibility.
(13) On 18 January 1985, the applicant was convicted by civil
court for DUI.
(14) On 31 January 1985, the applicant received an AAFES
dishonored check notification for several checks due to insufficient
funds.
(20) On 20 February 1985, the applicant received an overdue
notice concerning his AAFES Deferred Payment Plan.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge
and, after consulting with legal counsel, offered a conditional waiver
of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board
hearing contingent upon receipt of no less than a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient and recommended applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted
and applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
The discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver, approved the
separation, and directed the applicant be discharged with a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
Applicant was separated on 17 May 1985, under the provisions of AFR 39-
10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Misconduct-Pattern of
Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities) and
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The
applicant served 8 years, 1 month and 18 days of active military
service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and states that 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 a change to his character
of service.
AFPC/DPPRS complete 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 7
October 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. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that his general discharge for misconduct should be changed
to an honorable discharge. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
of showing that he has suffered an error or injustice. In the absence
of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
favorably consider 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 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-
02649 in Executive Session on 16 November 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03325
He further indicates he was advised by counsel to accept the general discharge instead of appearing before a discharge board. In his recommendation for discharge action, the commander indicated he had attempted to rehabilitate the applicant’s conduct through use of counseling and other administrative admonishments concerning the penalty for financial irresponsibility and misconduct. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00317
On 26 Jun 87, the First Sergeant counseled applicant concerning his failure to pay the debt of $380. On 17 Jul 87, after consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of a general discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01592
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01592 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. They were given rehabilitation and did not get discharged. He is just asking the Board at this time for...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01163
He received seven Airman Performance Reports closing 23 December 1979, 31 August 1980, 30 March 1981, 31 July 1981, 15 May 1982, 15 May 1983, and 18 January 1984, of which the overall evaluations were “9,” “8,” “8,” “8,”, “9,” “8,” and “4.” On 19 January 1984, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for patterns of misconduct. On 17 February 1984, applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending an under other than honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01584
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. On 23 June 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 14 days (Exhibit F) and on 8 July 2004, the Board provided the applicant the opportunity to respond to the FBI...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03350
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03350 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. His supervisor and his education manager both wrote letters of support recommending he be discharged honorably. We took notice of...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02447
The applicant’s father was notified of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP by letter dated 4 Mar 04. The term “dependent” with respect to a member or former member of a uniform service means (D) a child who (i) has not attained the age of 21: (ii) has not attained the age of 23, is enrolled in a full-time course of study at an institution of higher learning approved by the administering Secretary and is, or was at the end of the member or former member’s death, in fact dependent on...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03404
On 6 January 1989, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. On 18 February 1988, the applicant received a No-Show Letter for failing to report for a scheduled appointment on 11 January 1988. p. On 18 February 1988, the applicant received a UIF entry for his delinquent account with the NCO Club. In regard to the RE code, the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the assigned RE code was in error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02356
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, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel...