RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03503
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His drug abuse was a result of poor judgment.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
18 September 1979.
On 15 June 1984, applicant's commander recommended discharge for drug
abuse. The recommendation for discharge was based on the following:
(1). On 9 November 1982, the applicant was identified by his
commander for the substance abuse program for suspected use of
marijuana.
(2). On 2 September 1983, the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand for being disorderly on station.
(3). On 23 September 1983, the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand for being disrespectful in language and conduct toward a
superior noncommissioned officer.
(4). On 23 September 1983, the applicant was placed in the
substance abuse program for a positive urinalysis for marijuana and
received an Administrative Reprimand.
(5). On 24 October 1983, the applicant’s NCO status was vacated
due to his involvement with a controlled substance (marijuana).
(6). On 19 November 1983, the applicant was notified by AAFES
that he was delinquent in making his DPP payment.
(7). On 17 January 1984, the applicant received a Letter of
Counseling for his dormitory room not being prepared for the
commander’s inspection.
(8). On 19 January 1984, the applicant was notified by AAFES
that he was delinquent in making his DDP payment.
(9). On 19 February 1984, the applicant was notified by AAFES
that he was delinquent in making his DPP payment.
(10). On 5 March 1984, the applicant was entered into the
Substance Abuse Evaluation Process by his commander to determine
whether rehabilitation was needed.
(11). On 1 June 1984, the applicant received an Article 15 for
wrongful use of marijuana.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and
after consulting with legal counsel waived his right to submit
statements in his own behalf.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support discharge and recommended applicant receives a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the
applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and 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.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided
no facts warranting a change to his character of service.
AFPC/DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 9 December 2005, for review and comment within 30 days.
______________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice warranting an upgrade in the
applicant’s discharge. After a thorough review of the evidence of
record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the
actions taken against him were improper, contrary to the provisions of
the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors
other than his own misconduct. Therefore, in absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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-
03503 in Executive Session on 8 February 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Nov 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02136
On 2 July 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance. The commander recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge based on the following: (1) On 27 November 1981, he received a Letter of Reprimand for being 3 hours late for work. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02649
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-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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 February 1983, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force for a period of 4 years. Based on the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the requirements of the discharge regulation (See Exhibit C). While the applicant believes his service characterization is harsh, we believe a general discharge (under honorable conditions) was munificient given the information in his discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03532
The commander was recommending the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge based on the following: (1) On 10 April 1984, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. Exhibit E. FBI Investigative Report.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01163
He received seven Airman Performance Reports closing 23 December 1979, 31 August 1980, 30 March 1981, 31 July 1981, 15 May 1982, 15 May 1983, and 18 January 1984, of which the overall evaluations were “9,” “8,” “8,” “8,”, “9,” “8,” and “4.” On 19 January 1984, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for patterns of misconduct. On 17 February 1984, applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending an under other than honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03027
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03027 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: MICHAEL VITERNA HEARING DESIRED: “UNSURE” MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 APRIL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The evaluation officer stated the applicant should be furnished a general discharge and should not be...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01381
On 22 Dec 72, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged without P&R, and that he be issued a DD Form 257AF, General Discharge Certificate. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 May 04. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01960
Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01592
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01592 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. They were given rehabilitation and did not get discharged. He is just asking the Board at this time for...