RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01049
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 October 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He had his right ankle reconstructed and he is still having problems.
He would like to use his VA benefits.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 293,
Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the
United States.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Dec 79. On 13 Sep
83, he was notified by his commander he was recommending he be
separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct – drug abuse, with
a UOTHC discharge. The basis for the recommendation was his admitting
to using dangerous drugs, to include hashish, cocaine and LSD as
evidenced by his sworn statements given to Air Force Office of Special
Investigation (AFOSI) on 24 Sep 82. He acknowledged receipt of the
notification and after consulting with legal counsel waived his right
to a hearing before an administrative discharge board. He did not
submit statements in his own behalf. According to the legal review,
he submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an
administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon receipt of an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge. His conditional
waiver request was disapproved on 7 Oct 83. The base legal office
reviewed the recommendation, found it legally sufficient, and
recommended a UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation
(P&R). The discharge authority approved the separation and directed
he be discharged with a UOTHC discharge without P&R. He was separated
on 17 Oct 83. He had served 3 years, 9 months and 22 days on active
duty.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on the basis of the data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states 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 in his discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a
change to his character of service.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
23 Jun 06 for review and response 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, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. 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. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to
the existing circumstances.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have
considered applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-
service activities and accomplishments. On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 2 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 06, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Jun 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03270
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 10 Oct 84, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge. On 19 Aug 82, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03896
On 28 Jul 83, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s unconditional waiver be accepted and that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 5 Aug 83, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for a pattern of misconduct - discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities, with an under other than...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03317
On 12 Jan 83, applicant’s squadron commander recommended his request for discharge be approved and recommended a general discharge. On 8 May 83, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 22 Oct 85, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03313
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03313 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 APRIL 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting a change to her under other than honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01915
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 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2006-02152
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is currently serving with the Montana Army National Guard and would like to have his RE code upgraded so he can enlist in the Naval Reserve or even active service. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed his separation. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03698
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices during the discharge processing warranting a change in his RE code. The complete HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jan 07 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03875
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 03875 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUNE 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2006-02989
The basis for the commander’s recommendation was that he signed an enlistment document stating he had no previous military service on 21 Feb 80, when he had served on active duty in the United States Army from 26 Mar 79 to 26 Jul 79, and he signed an enlistment document indicating he had never been treated for mental illness and had never been a patient in any type of hospital. On 1 May 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant request to upgrade his general (under...