RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03938
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 JUN 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes these categorizations are unjust and he has changed his
life around.
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 November 1982, for a term of 4 years.
On 10 July 1987, the applicant's commander notified him that he was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for commission of a
serious offense.
The basis for the commander’s recommendation was that on 26 June 1987,
he received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana as a result of
being positively identified for the drug THC (marijuana), as evidenced
by results for drug urinalysis (Random) on 10 April 1987.
He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, and after
consulting with counsel the applicant submitted statements in his own
behalf. The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and
found to be legally sufficient to support discharge.
The discharge authority approved his separation and ordered a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge without P&R. Applicant was
separated on 17 July 1987, under the provisions of AFR 39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen for (Misconduct-Drug Abuse) and
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served
4 years, 7 months and 25 days on active duty.
On 4 April 1989, the applicant submitted an application to the Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be
upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB considered all the evidence of
record and 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.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 9 March 2006, that on the basis of the
data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record. (Exhibit
E)
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states 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,
nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of
service.
The DPPRS 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
20 Jan 06, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After careful consideration
of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions
taken to affect his discharge were improper or contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that
the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other
than his own misconduct. The only other basis upon which to upgrade
his discharge would be based on clemency. However, applicant has
failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service
activities. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we
find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-
03938 in Executive Session on 19 April 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06.
Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 3 Mar 06.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC 2005 03938
On 4 April 1989, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB considered all the evidence of record and 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. Therefore, based on the available...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03464
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 August 1978 for a period of four years. On 24 February 1981, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02444
On 20 Sep 02, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as general, under honorable conditions. On 8 Jan 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-02444 in Executive Session...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00397
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states 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 applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01924
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01924 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 December 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and remove the Article 15 dated 11 July 2000 from her records. In the case of nonjudicial...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00258
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending the discharge he reviewed the applicant’s military record, as well as the documents relating to the offenses which form the basis for this action. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting the applicant’s general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Although the applicant did not specifically request...
We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03671
An evaluation officer reviewed the case on 9 June 1982, found the applicant an unsuitable candidate for rehabilitation, and recommended he be discharged from the Air Force with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the separation and recommended he be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the documentation on file in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01243
On 16 July 1987 the commander notified applicant he was being placed on the control roster effective 16 July 1987. Therefore, at the time of his discharge, he was still serving on the control roster. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of...