Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00999
Original file (BC-2006-00999.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00999
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      DAVID R. FORT    COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 OCT 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He accepted  the  discharge  not  knowing  it  was  not  an  honorable
discharge.

Applicant's complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  as  an  basic
airman (AB) on 9 April 1984 for a period of four years.

On 29 September 1985, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to recommend him for discharge  under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10 (Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions).   The
specific reasons for the discharge action were:

            a.    On 17 June 1985, the applicant received a Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for failing to carry out his assigned duties on  6 and
7 June 1985.

            b.    On 21 August 1985, the applicant received a  Article
15 for on 2 August 1985, being absent from his place of  duty  without
authority and making an official record with the intent to deceive.

            c.    On 31 January 1985, the applicant received a  Letter
of Counseling (LOC) for on 19 January  1986,  improperly  operating  a
government vehicle.

            d.    On 14 August 1986, the applicant received an Article
15 for on 1 August 1986, stealing merchandise from the  Base  Exchange
valued at $169.00.

The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification  letter  and
waived his right to military counsel and to submit a statement.

On 6 October 1986, a legal review was conducted in  which  the  staff
judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged with  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge with no probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 7 October 1986, the discharge authority directed the applicant  be
discharged with an under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was discharged on 10 October 1986, in the grade  of  AB
with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge.   He  had  a
total of two years, six months and two days of active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data  furnished  they
were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the  service  member's
file, they believe his discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulations  of  that
time.  Also, the discharge was within  the  sound  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any other facts to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based  on  the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant  and
counsel on 5 May 2006, for review and response.  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 an injustice.   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
and adopt its rationale  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.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust.  The applicant was discharged for  a  pattern  of
misconduct.  His records reflect he  received  several  administrative
actions in effort to improve  his  conduct  and  these  rehabilitative
efforts  failed.   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-
2006-00999 in Executive Session on 22 June 2006 under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 06, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00504

    Original file (BC-2006-00504.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 August 1970, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00754

    Original file (BC-2006-00754.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03635

    Original file (BC-2006-03635.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    His punishment consisted of reduction in rank to the grade of airman basic (AB) (E-1) and restriction to the base for 60 days. On 11 February 1987, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge for misconduct under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 5-47b and 5-49c, with a general discharge. The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged without probation or rehabilitation with a general (under honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01632

    Original file (BC-2006-01632.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03497

    Original file (BC-2006-03497.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03497 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 May 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The bases for the recommendation were: (1) she received an Article 15 for failure to go. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02067

    Original file (BC-2006-02067.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02067 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 Jan 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03370

    Original file (BC-2005-03370.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The commander indicated his reasons for the action were that on 2 January 1986, the applicant was disrespectful toward a superior noncommissioned officer, for which he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); on 2 October 1985, he received a letter of counseling concerning his negative attitude and military bearing; and on 6 September 1985, he received a letter of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02851

    Original file (BC-2003-02851.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The base legal services reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support discharge. The Discharge Authority concurred with the recommendations and ordered a general discharge without P&R on 30 January 1986. The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 3 February 1986 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - drug abuse) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01049

    Original file (BC-2006-01049.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01049 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 October 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00321

    Original file (BC-2007-00321.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...