RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01374
INDEX CODE: 110.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 OCT 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge President Ronald Reagan was downsizing
the military. His minor infractions were no reason to get kicked out
with no chance of reenlisting in another branch of service.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
17 January 1980 for a period of four years.
On 10 February 1983, 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) February 1981, applicant was evaluated for alcohol abuse.
(2) June 1982, received an Article 15 for failure to go.
(3) August 1982, the suspended reduction to airman imposed on
applicant in June 1982 was vacated for failure to obey a lawful order
and he received a Letter of Reprimand.
(4) January 1983, received an Article 15 for being absent from
his place of duty.
Applicant acknowledges receipt of notification of discharge and was
offered the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit
statements in his own behalf. Applicant chose not to consult with
legal counsel or submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal
office reviewed his case and found it legally sufficient to support
separation and recommended the applicant receive a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge.
On 10 February 1983, applicant was discharged with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation
in the grade of airman. He served 3 years, 1 month and 29 days of
total active military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and states based on the documentation in
the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings. He provided no
facts warranting a change to his character
AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
13 May 2005, 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. The records reflect that the
commander initiated administrative actions based on information he
determined to be reliable and the administrative actions taken appear
to have been 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, and since we find no
abuse of that authority, we find no reason to overturn the commander’s
decision. Therefore, we agree with the opinions 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 having suffered
either an error or an injustice.
In view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the
relief sought.
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 issues 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 a 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-
01374 in Executive Session on 9 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 May 2005.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 2005.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01232
The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the commander abused his discretionary authority when he initiated the discharge action, and since we find...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00776
_________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Mar 05. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01344
On 15 May 1987, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and rebuts the charges brought against him at the time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01888
c. On 3 October 1983, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to report. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the reasons that were stated for his discharge are not accurate. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2004-01888 in Executive Session on 21 October 2004, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00120
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to identify with an arrest record on the basis of the information furnished - Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records. They believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00821
Further, since the Article 15 was the sole reason for his discharge and the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) has upgraded his discharge to honorable, the reason for his discharge and RE code should also be changed. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing commanders or the reviewing authority abused their discretionary authority, that his substantial rights were violated during the processing of the Article 15 punishments, or that the punishments...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02163
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02163 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. However, he has provided no evidence showing his discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation at the time it was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02752
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 December 1982, for a period of four years in the grade of airman first class. On 19 Dec 86, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade of her discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2004-00626
The AFPC/DPPRS 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 26 March 2004 for review and response within 30 days. We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...