Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03467
Original file (BC-2005-03467.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03467
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 May 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable (UOTH) discharge be  upgraded  to  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by his commanding officer that if  he  requested  discharge  his
discharge would be upgraded after six months if he stayed  out  of  trouble.
He has stayed out of trouble ever since.

In support of his request, applicant provided copies of  his  DD  Forms  214
and  character  reference  statements.   His   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from documentation provided by  the  applicant  indicated  he
enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 Aug 79.  He was honorably discharged  from
the Army on 12 Oct 79 after serving 2 months and  4  days  on  active  duty.
The reason for his discharge states "Discharge  of  personnel  who  did  not
meet procurement medical fitness  standards".   He  contracted  his  initial
enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 30 Apr 71.  On  31  Jan  72,  he  was
discharged  with  service  characterized  as  under  other  than   honorable
conditions.  He had served for 6 months and 28 days.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigations
indicated they were unable to locate an  arrest  record  pertaining  to  the
applicant (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPPRS defers to the Board to determine if relief is warranted based  on  the
limited  supporting  documentation  in  the  applicant's  master   personnel
records.  DPPRS states there is no documentation  in  his  master  personnel
record relating to the reason for his discharge or  the  discharge  process.
His DD Form 214 indicates he was discharged under the provisions of AFM  39-
12 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  His  Separation
Program Designator indicates he requested discharge  for  the  good  of  the
service.  His records contain an Article 15 he received on 28  Jun  71,  for
failure to obey a lawful order and failure to go at the time  prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty.  His records also indicate he  appeared  before
a  Faculty  Board  for  academic  deficiency  and  conduct  prejudicial   to
training.  His conduct and attitude in the  classroom  was  extremely  poor.
He slept in class despite repeated counseling and stated  he  did  not  want
any part of military service.  His behavior was a  detriment  to  the  other
students.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with  the  facts  and  documentation  contained  in  his
personnel records because those reasons are  false.   His  problems  started
when he told his Officer in Charge (OIC) at Sheppard AFB that he  needed  to
be home because he  needed  to  be  with  his  parents  who  were  having  a
difficult time financially and physically.  At the time he felt it  was  his
obligation to be with them in order to provide them  with  income  and  keep
them from losing their home.  The OIC did not see eye-to-eye with him and  a
conflict of interest started.  The OIC did not agree with him and  tried  to
make things as hard as he could.  He made him look bad in any way he  could.
 After that he tried every way he could to get into trouble so he could  get
out of the military.  He deeply regrets the  way  things  happened  but  was
told that his discharge would automatically be changed  within  a  six-month
period.

His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Based upon the presumption  of  regularity
in  the  conduct  of  governmental  affairs  and  without  evidence  to  the
contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was  proper  and  in
compliance with appropriate directives.  Therefore, based on  the  available
evidence of record, 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 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 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-
03467 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.
    Exhibit F.  FBI Negative Reply, dated 24 Feb 06.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100951

    Original file (0100951.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical doctor recommended that he be considered for appearance before a Board of Officers (BO) with a view toward his separation from the Air Force. In addition, he was requested to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (see Exhibit F). Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of applicant’s discharge is warranted on the basis...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02344

    Original file (BC-2004-02344.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02344 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 FEB 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation on his DD Form 214 be removed. The specific reasons for the discharge action were: The 6 April 1981 MHC evaluation diagnosis of personality disorder and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2006-02989

    Original file (BC-2006-02989.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01556

    Original file (BC-2006-01556.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 8 Jan 71, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic. The discharge authority approved applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01556 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03514

    Original file (BC-2003-03514.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He then went AWOL because he did not know how else to deal with it at the time. However, he was harassed, threatened and denied advancement by one, Sgt C__, all because he opposed the Vietnam War. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02729

    Original file (BC-2006-02729.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02729 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 MARCH 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a disability discharge. He received an Honorable discharge, but he believes the Air Force should have done more to help him, “like a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02837

    Original file (BC-2002-02837.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0351

    Original file (FD2002-0351.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I swear this on every thing I love I just need a chance to make things right to prove that people make mistakes and if given a chance can do right by the military. Should 4RwaiiiNes c discharged? WMieeemaintains that he should not have received his first Article 15 because he was not sleeping while on duty but instead was “relaxing and listening to my music.” He also contends that had he not been issued the first Article 15, he would not have been given the second Article 15.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02925

    Original file (BC-2010-02925.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02925 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). He served a total of two years, seven months, and nine days of active duty service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102031

    Original file (0102031.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02031 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The Board also invited the applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities. In a letter, dated 15 April 2002, the applicant states that he has no excuse for the way he acted...