Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02869
Original file (BC-2005-02869.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02869
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 MARCH 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed
so he can claim unemployment benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The wage claim history reflecting $0 says he  received  no  pay  while
serving on active duty is incorrect. He is entitled  to  unemployment.
Please make this adjustment in his records.

In support of  his  application,  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his
unemployment claim history

Applicant completion submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force as  an
airman basic on 12 August 2003. He was progressively promoted  to  the
grade of airman first class with a date of rank of 20 February 2004.

On 13 May 2005, summary court-martial charges were  preferred  against
the   applicant   for   wrongfully   distributing   some   amount   of
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ecstasy.

On 18 July 2005, the applicant submitted a request  for  discharge  in
lieu of trial by court-martial. He understood that if his request  was
approved he may be discharged under other than  honorable  conditions.
He was aware of the  adverse  nature  of  such  a  discharge  and  the
possible consequences and it may deprive him of veteran’s benefits. He
submitted his  request  for  discharge  after  consulting  with  legal
counsel.

On 8 August 2005, the 4th FW/JA and 9th AF/JA legal  offices  reviewed
the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended  approval  of
applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of  trial  by  court-martial
and recommended he receive an under other  than  honorable  conditions
discharge.

On 8 August 2005, the discharge authority approved applicant’s request
for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed  that  he
be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

On 16 August 2005, applicant was separated from the  Air  Force  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(request for discharge in lieu of trial  by  court-martial),  with  an
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He had served
two years and five days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and states that, based on the evidence of
record, the applicant’s 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 provide any  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in his discharge processing. He  provided  no
facts warranting a change to his character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS stated  in  order  to  receive  unemployment  compensation,
individuals must complete their  “first  full  term  of  service”  and
received a “general (under honorable conditions) discharge.” Applicant
does not meet the required criteria for unemployment compensation.

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 timely filed.

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 the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his discharge should be changed to one  that  qualifies  him
for unemployment  benefits.   The  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.  The applicant was discharged  from  active
duty with less than a full term of service  completed  which  rendered
him ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Therefore,  we  agree
with the opinion 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 the absence of persuasive evidence to  the  contrary,  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 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-
2005-02869 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 13 Sep 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02478

    Original file (BC-2005-02478.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Headquarters Twenty-Second Air Force/JA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved. On 18 February 1990, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB reviewed the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01855

    Original file (BC-2005-01855.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02649

    Original file (BC-2005-02649.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03403

    Original file (BC-2004-03403.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    AFBCMR BC-2004-03403 Index Code: 110.03 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03295

    Original file (BC-2005-03295.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02735

    Original file (BC-2005-02735.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02735 INDEX CODE: 110.02 xxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE xxxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 FEB 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from miscellaneous/general reasons to reduction in force. DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03863

    Original file (BC-2004-03863.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 May 1961, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to discharge the applicant and recommended he be required to appear before an Evaluation Officer to determine his eligibility to be retained in the military service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. The applicant did not provide any facts warranting a change in his discharge, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify any errors or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00743

    Original file (BC-2004-00743.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records, his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Should he do so, it may provide the Board a basis to consider granting his request based on clemency. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00686

    Original file (BC-2004-00686.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to applicant’s court-martial, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied. Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803258

    Original file (9803258.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 November 1982, the applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Voluntary Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...