RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-
03317
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 MAY 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated
incident in three years of service, with no other adverse action.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Feb 80, for a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic. His highest
grade held was airman first class.
On 4 Jan 83, special court-martial charges were preferred against
the applicant based on the following: (1) On 23 Aug 82, he
wrongfully appropriated $100.00 by forging his commander’s
signature on a partial pay request, for the purpose of obtaining
the payment, the property of the United States; and (2) On 25 Oct
82, he wrongfully appropriated $150.00 by forging his commander’s
signature on a partial pay request, for the purpose of obtaining
the payment, the property of the United States.
On 10 Jan 83, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He
understood that if his request was approved he could receive a
discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 12 Jan 83, applicant’s squadron commander recommended his
request for discharge be approved and recommended a general
discharge. The reasons for the proposed action were applicant’s
record of substandard duty performance and personal financial
problems, and the special court-martial charges preferred against
him.
On 12 Jan 83, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found no errors or
irregularities affecting the substantial rights of the airman, and
recommended he be discharged from the Air Force with a UOTHC
discharge. On 12 Jan 83, the wing commander recommended the
request for discharge in lieu of trial be approved and that his
service be characterized as UOTHC. On 13 Jan 83, the SJA
recommended the request for discharge be approved and stated that
should a UOTHC characterization be directed the commander must set
forth the reasons therefor, as the characterization is less
favorable than the type recommended by his immediate commander. On
19 Jan 83, the discharge authority approved the discharge and
directed applicant be separated with a UOTHC. He stated the
offenses ordered to trial by special court-martial involved
wrongful obtaining of currency of the United States; the flouting
of military authority; and affected the security of the
installation. In addition, his duty performance did not show a
potential for future satisfactory service.
On 24 Jan 83, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-10, by reason of request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
He served 2 years, 11 months, and 4 days of active military
service.
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.
After review of the evidence of record, the AFDRB concluded that
the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the
discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was
provided full administrative due process. The Board further
concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade
of discharge and applicant’s discharge should not be changed. A
copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an
investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.
They stated, in part, 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. Additionally, the applicant provided no
evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in
the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change
to the character of service.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 Nov 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
reply has not been received by this office (Exhibit F).
On 15 Dec 05, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment. To date, no
response has been received by this office. (Exhibit G)
___________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After careful
consideration of the evidence provided, the discharge appears to be
in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence
to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was
inappropriate or that it was based on any factors other than his
own misconduct. We find no evidence of error in this case and
after thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted in support
of applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an
injustice. In addition, in view of the contents of the FBI Report
of Investigation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the
characterization of applicant’s discharge is warranted on the basis
of clemency. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record,
we find no basis upon which to favorably consider his request.
___________________________________________________________________
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-
03317 in Executive Session on 11 January 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 22 Oct 85, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Nov 05.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 05.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Dec 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
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 | 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-2005-03875
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00071
On 11 Mar 82, the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 29 Jan 81 through 28 Jan 82, was referred to the applicant. Time lost for the following periods: 28-31 Oct 81, 15-16 Dec 81, 29 Jan- 1 Feb 82, 16-21 Feb 82, and 20 May 82-23 Sep 82. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jan 05 for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00056
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00056 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 May 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03507
On 7 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 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 an upgrade of the discharge. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence that the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper or...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00509
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 17 Mar 06 for review and comment within 30 days and on 17 Apr 2006, he was forwarded a copy of the FBI report. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02827
On 5 Mar 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. Based on the documentation from the previous review by the AFDRB and the limited documentation on file in the master personnel record, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The Board noted the applicant’s prior honorable periods of service and his accomplishments...
Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.