Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00852
Original file (BC-2006-00852.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00852
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 SEP 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge upgraded.  He states he was 20 days  short  of  his
four-year commitment to the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 April 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 20 March 1986, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him under the provisions of  AFR  39-10  -
Misconduct-Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions.    The   applicant
received four  letters  of  counseling  (LOCs),  six  letters  of  reprimand
(LORs), and  nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ).

The commander advised the applicant of his rights in this matter.

After consulting with counsel, he submitted statements in his own behalf.

On 3 April 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended he be discharged  with
service characterized as general and that he not be  offered  probation  and
rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 10 April 1986, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman  first
class.  He served 3 years, 11 months, and 21 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at 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 and  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The  applicant  also  did
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred
in the discharge processing.  Nor did he provide facts warranting  a  change
to his character of service.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA  recommends  denial.   JA  states  with  the  trail  of   documented
misconduct together with the applicant’s response to the notification  of  a
recommended general discharge, it  is  not  surprising  that  the  commander
proceeded with  an  administrative  discharge  characterized  as  a  general
(under honorable conditions).  The applicant’s  present  submission  reveals
nothing that the commander  failed  to  consider,  and  remarkably,  do  not
demonstrate any change of the applicant’s  attitude  about  his  misconduct.
There is no error or injustice  in  this  case;  the  applicant’s  discharge
characterization was appropriate.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 April 2006, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the
applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit F).   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

On 22 May 2006, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 14 days  (Exhibit  G).   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  the  applicant’s  general
discharge be upgraded to an honorable  discharge.   We  believe  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and  do
not find persuasive evidence that pertinent  regulations  were  violated  or
that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at  the
time of discharge.  Although the  applicant  did  not  specifically  request
consideration based on clemency, we find insufficient evidence to warrant  a
recommendation that the discharge  be  upgraded  on  that  basis.   In  this
respect,  we  note  the  applicant’s  continued  misconduct  following   his
discharge, as indicated on the FBI report.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
00852 in Executive Session on 21 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 06.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Mar 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Apr 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 May 06, w/atch.




                       B.J. WHITE-OLSON
                       Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02771

    Original file (BC-2006-02771.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told by his commanding officer and base commander that he was receiving an AFR 39-16 undesirable discharge due to a civil court action. Additionally, applicant had the following derogatory information on file in the master personnel record: (1) On 28 May 1962, applicant received an Article 15 for being found guilty of hit and run by the Biloxi Police. The discharge authority approved the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02232

    Original file (BC-2006-02232.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02232 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 28 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his grade of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored. The applicant availed himself of his opportunity to present his case...

  • 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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00138

    Original file (BC-2006-00138.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00138 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 16 JULY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C.,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00432

    Original file (BC-2006-00432.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 her 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00090

    Original file (BC-2007-00090.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00090 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 JUL 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow reentry into the military. As of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00310

    Original file (BC-2005-00310.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He completed a total of 2 years, 1 month, and 25 days of active service and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02095A

    Original file (BC-2005-02095A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPPRS provided an information only evaluation of the applicant’s request for reconsideration of her case. AFPC/JA notes that this individual fell under the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program. __________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 7 June 2006,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00381

    Original file (BC-2006-00381.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to the applicant, which is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and 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. AFPC/JA's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02816

    Original file (BC-2004-02816.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 November 1961, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. However, as of this date, no response has been received. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.