RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03577
INDEX CODE: 100.03
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 MAY 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He does not understand why his discharge was general. The discharge
section at the personnel office said he could request an upgrade to
honorable after one year of being separated.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
13 January 1976 for a period of four years and progressed to the grade
of staff sergeant.
On 4 February 1988, he was notified by his commander that he was
recommending him for a discharge from the Air Force for failure in the
Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Program. The commander was recommending
applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge
based on the fact that on or about 2 November 1987 until 16
December 1987, applicant was entered into the Alcohol Abuse
Rehabilitation Program and failed to successfully complete the program
due to his refusal to participate and unwillingness to cooperate.
On 1 February 1988, applicant acknowledge receipt of the notification
of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel waived his rights
to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and to submit
statements in his own behalf.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant’s
unconditional waiver be accepted and he be discharged with a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
On 4 February 1988, applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (alcohol abuse
rehabilitation failure), with a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge. He served 12 years and 22 days of total active military
service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated 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. Applicant did not submit any 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 or narrative reason for separation.
AFPC/DPPRS’s 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 January 2006, 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, 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 his
discharge. The records reflect that the commander initiated
administrative actions based on information he determined to be
reliable and that administrative actions were 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. The only other basis upon which to recommend an
upgrade of his discharge would be clemency. However, applicant has
failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service
conduct. Should he provide statements from community leaders and
acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other
evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will
reconsider this case based on the new evidence. Therefore, in the
absence of this documentation, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2005-03577 in Executive Session on 8 March 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
Ms. Mr. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Mr. August Doddato, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 06.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03758
(3) On 5 June 1989, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for reporting for duty over two hours late. 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 her request. Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 24 Jan 06.
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-2004-02988
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 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 8 October 2004 for review and response within 30 days. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02604
On 4 April 1990, 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) On 19 March 1990, he was evaluated for alcohol abuse. On 8 May 1990, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (minor disciplinary infractions), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00364
On 3 September 1993, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, the Board finds no evidence of error or injustice. However, should the applicant provide evidence of his post-service accomplishments, the Board would entertain his request for an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00074
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. On 15 April 2005, SAF/MIBR informed the applicant that they contacted officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to receive copies of his service medical records but they did not receive a response. A copy of letter, with attachments, attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 April 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03102
After consideration of the applicant’s statement, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the wing commander the applicant be discharged for the reasons stated above, that he be given a general discharge, and that he not be given probation and rehabilitation. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. While we note that the applicant received favorable ratings on the last EPR he received, we also note...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-004691
On 10 Mar 82, he was discharged from the Air Force with service characterized as UOTHC. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02598
On 7 Sep 01, the applicant submitted a response to the discharge authority requesting he be retained or discharged with an honorable discharge. Based on their review of the documentation in the master personnel record, they determined the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Contrary to this assertion, one serious military or civilian offense may be a basis for discharge for misconduct.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2005-01907
On 15 May 1989, the applicant failed to report to his place of duty, for which he received written counseling. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his...