RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00857
INDEX CODE: 110.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Sep 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to
general (under honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant makes no contentions. In support of his request, applicant
provided a copy of his DD Form 214. His complete submission, with
attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant entered active duty on 15 Feb 73. On 22 Sep 75, Special Court-
Martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the following
specifications: 1) He was absent without authority from on or about 18 Apr
75 until on or about 22 Apr 75. 2) He was absent without authority from on
or about 24 Apr 75 until on or about 22 Sep 75. On 26 Sep 75, after
consulting counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service
under the provisions of AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-78. He understood that if
his request was approved he may receive an UOTHC discharge. The base legal
office found the case legally sufficient and recommended his request be
approved and that he receive an UOTHC discharge. The discharge authority
concurred and approved his request. Applicant was discharged on 24 Oct 75.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states his discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in his
discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his
character of service.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/JA recommends the case be dismissed as untimely, but if considered on
its merits, denial is recommended. JA states the applicant provides
absolutely no evidence that his discharge characterization did not comply
with the requirements contained in the version of the regulations in effect
at the time he was administratively separated. The documentation contained
in the file demonstrates he was afforded all required due process rights.
More importantly, the characterization of his discharge was a direct result
of his knowing and voluntary request for discharge that likely would be
characterized as undesirable under the circumstances. In light of the fact
he faced a punitive discharge in the pending court-martial for which there
was overwhelming evidence of guilt, the commander was actually quite
merciful in granting his requested discharge
The JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14
Apr 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. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-
00857 in Executive Session on 1 Jun 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 06, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter,AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Mar 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Apr 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00749
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00579
He did his separation paperwork on 20 Jul 02, one month shy of the six months; therefore, he received a RE code of 4E, even though his military separation date with the United States Air Force was 5 Sep 02. He was assigned RE code “4E” which denotes “Grade is airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more months (55 months for 6-year enlistees), if a first-term airman; or, grade is airman first class or below and the airman is a second-term or career airman.” He was assigned...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00754
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00754 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 SEP 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him reenter military service. Furthermore, the discharge notification letter the applicant received stated “If you are...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00753
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00753 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 15 SEPTEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, they conclude...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00853
On 24 Aug 90, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 29 Nov 90, 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 applicant was provided full...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00644
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating that based on the documentation in the case file, it appears the Article 15 was removed from the applicant’s OSR because his command believed he had been rehabilitated and should no longer have the document in his OSR. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00381
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 | CY2007 | BC-2005-03220A
Additional AFBCMR applications resulted in the applicant’s record being corrected, on 25 Feb 04, to show he was tendered a Regular appointment effective 8 Feb 81, and that he served in the grade of major until his retirement in that grade on 1 Jul 93. The ROP contained factual errors and did not even come close to summarizing his remarks and the new evidence he provided. The record contains a letter dated January 15, 2003, to applicant from AFPC/DPOC informing him that as a result of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02180
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 27 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administration Separation of Airman (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 Aug 84, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of Request for discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with service characterized as UOTHC. Exhibit B.
On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...