Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01274
Original file (BC-2006-01274.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01274
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 OCTOBER 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His general discharge was inequitable because  it  was  based  on  one
isolated incident in 24  months  of  service  with  no  other  adverse
actions.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement and
a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 February 1982 in the
grade of airman basic (E-1).  Applicant was  separated  from  the  Air
Force  on  18  July  1984  under  the   provisions   of   AFR   39-10,
Administration Separation of Airmen (unsatisfactory performance), with
a general (under honorable conditions)  discharge.   He  was  credited
with 2 years, 5 months and 2 days of active duty service.

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.
   2) 26 Mar 84, applicant received a LOC for being late for work.
   3) 23 Feb 84, applicant received an Article 15 for being  late  for
      work.
   4) 9  Feb  84,  applicant  received  a  LOC  for  substandard  duty
      performance.
   5) 23 Nov  83,  applicant  received  a  LOC  for  substandard  duty
      performance.
   6) 6  Sep  83,  applicant  received  a  LOC  for  substandard  duty
      performance.
   7) 6  Jul  83,  applicant  received  a  LOC  for  substandard  duty
      performance.
   8) 3 Apr 83, applicant received an Airman Performance Report  (APR)
      with an overall rating of 5.
   9) 15 Mar 83, applicant received an Article 15 for being  late  for
      duty and lying about the reason for being late.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and after consulting with legal counsel submitted  statements  on  his
own behalf.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that  the
applicant be discharged with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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 and
the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   He  also
provided no facts warranting a change in his character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  contends  the  charges  brought   against   him   were
unwarranted and baseless at the time. He was set-up  and  black-listed
by his captain and she was discriminating against him and being racist
towards him (Exhibit E).


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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting an  upgrade  in  the
applicant’s discharge.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence  of
record and applicant's submission, we are not  persuaded  the  actions
taken against him were improper, contrary to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other
than his own misconduct. Therefore, we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the  absence  of
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 probable  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-
2006-01274 in Executive Session on 19 July 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. 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 B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 May 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 06.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 22 Jun 06




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00509

    Original file (BC-2006-00509.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS complete 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 17 Mar 06 for review and comment within 30 days and on 17 Apr 2006, he was forwarded a copy of the FBI report. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00921

    Original file (BC-2006-00921.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00921 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 SEPTEMBER 2007 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. __________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367

    Original file (BC-2003-02367.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02977

    Original file (BC-2006-02977.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02977 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 APR 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed to “academic difficulties” rather than “unsatisfactory performance,” and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02941

    Original file (BC-2006-02941.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02941 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Mar 31, 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be upgraded to honorable and his re-enlistment code be upgraded from 2B. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02441

    Original file (BC-2003-02441.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 January 1985, the applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) for being late for duty on 15 January 1986. k. The applicant received verbal counseling on 24 January 1985 for a dishonored check. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). While the applicant contends that he was discharged because he was deemed unfit psychologically, it appears that the discharge was based on the applicant’s overall misconduct,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02854

    Original file (BC-2006-02854.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02854 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Mar 24, 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02180

    Original file (BC-2006-02180.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03698

    Original file (BC-2006-03698.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices during the discharge processing warranting a change in his RE code. The complete HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jan 07 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02681

    Original file (BC-2006-02681.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02681 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Mar 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason (Misconduct-Drug Use) for his 1983 honorable discharge be removed from his DD Form 214. On 18 Nov 83, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent...