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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 26
January 1982 for a term of 4 years.
On 27 January 1986, the applicant's commander notified him that he was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for commission of a
serious offense – drug abuse.
The basis for the commander’s recommendation was that 13 January 1986, he
received an Article 15 for wrongfully using and distributing marijuana. He
received four Records of Counseling and a Letter of Reprimand and was
verbally counseled on three occasions.
He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, and after
consulting with counsel he 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 probation or rehabilitation.
Applicant was separated on 3 March 1986, 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
four years, one month and eight days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 5 May 2006, that on the basis of the data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record. (Exhibit C)
_________________________________________________________________
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 D.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. The discharge appears to be in compliance
with the governing regulation, and we find no evidence to indicate his
separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find no evidence of
error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record,
we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. The only other basis
upon which to upgrade his discharge would be clemency. However, applicant
has failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service
activities. Should he provide documentary evidence pertaining to his post
service activities, we would be willing to reconsider his application.
Therefore, based on the 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-2006-00434
in Executive Session on 19 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, Member
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, 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. FBI Request, dated 5 May 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Mar 06.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02070
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 DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jul 2006 and 2 Aug 2006, for review and comment within 30 days. Based on the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03022
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03022 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 APRIL 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions). Headquarters Third Air Force legal office and the base legal...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01115
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01115 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 13 OCTOBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code, Narrative Reason and Separation Code be changed so he may join the Air National Guard. On 7 February 1997, the discharge authority directed that...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-004334
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. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02134
On 8 Dec 67, the applicant, then an Airman (E- 2), was charged with four specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UMCJ. The discharge authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be discharged with an undesirable discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Jul 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01918
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02356
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, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02356
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, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2001-02110
On 27 March 1957, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01163
The complete DPPRS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states he believes the medical evidence he provided identifies errors in the discharge process. 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...