Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-004334
Original file (BC-2006-004334.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00434
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 JUL 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had only  one  transgression  during  an  otherwise  clean  service
history.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
3 April 1987 for a term of 4 years.

On 26 October 1988, the applicant's commander notified him that he was
recommending  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air   Force   for   minor
disciplinary infractions.

The basis for the commander’s recommendation was  that  on  20 October
1989, applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR)  for  failure  to
return to his appointed place of duty; on 5 October 1989, he  received
an Article 15 for being absent from his appointed place  of  duty;  on
4 October 1989, he received an Article 15 for failing to pay  a  debt;
on 13 September 1989, he received LOR for financial  irresponsibility;
on 10 July 1989, applicant received a LOR for theft and harassment; on
9 June 1989, he received a  Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)for  reckless
driving; on 19 May 1989, he received a LOC for damaging a  fire  alarm
panel, and on  15 September  1987,  he  received  an  Article  15  for
stealing a station wagon valued at $350.00.

He acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge,  and  after
consulting with counsel the  applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit
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 15  November  1989,  under  the  provisions
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation  of  Airmen  for  (Misconduct-
Pattern of Minor Disciplinary  Infractions)  and  received  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 2 years,  7  months
and 13 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 27 February 2004, 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
10 Mar 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.  We therefore agree with the  recommendations
of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as  the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that
he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above
and absence persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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-2006-
00434 in Executive Session on 17 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
                 Ms. Debra Walker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 06.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Mar 06.
      Exhibit E. FBI Response, dated 5 May 06.





      MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00623

    Original file (BC-2006-00623.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. As of this date, this office has received no response. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02153

    Original file (BC-2006-02153.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02153 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 27 March 1989, the discharge authority directed that she be discharged with a general under honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03367

    Original file (BC-2005-03367.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 March 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 6 years. For this offense, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC). We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02221

    Original file (BC-2006-02221.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02221 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation (Unsatisfactory Performance) be removed. She received an Enlisted Performance Report closing 6 November 1989 in which the overall evaluation was 1....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01274

    Original file (BC-2006-01274.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 May 84 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force based n the following: 1) 28 Mar 84, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for substandard performance. Novel, Panel Chair Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-01274 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 06, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 May 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03662

    Original file (BC-2005-03662.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 April 1986, he reported late for duty and received an LOR. DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge process, and provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service. After careful consideration of the available evidence and in the absence of evidence by the applicant to the contrary, we believe that the actions taken to effect his discharge were proper and in compliance with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03007

    Original file (BC-2005-03007.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 December 1990, the applicant submitted a request to his commander that he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 2 August 1991, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to general. We have reviewed the evidence provided and are unable to conclude corrective action is warranted based on an injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02390

    Original file (BC-2006-02390.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02390 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: CVSO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A copy of the FBI request provided stated they were unable to identify any arrest record on the applicant, which is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00404

    Original file (BC-2005-00404.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant acknowledged he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge but, based on his almost 19 years of service, requested he be considered for a general discharge. On 11 August 1989, the Major Air Command Director of General Law found the file legally sufficient and recommended lengthy service probation be denied. On 16 October 1989, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions in the grade of technical sergeant by reason of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00434

    Original file (BC-2006-00434.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00434 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 JUL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably...