RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02201
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 January 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His wife caused the problems that led to his discharge.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a nomination
format, a character reference, and a copy of his DD Form 214.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Apr 88. On 5 Apr 91,
he was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be
discharged from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions. The
basis for the recommendation was: reporting for work not having proper
rest, thus posing a safety risk; reporting for work late, taking
excessively long lunch breaks, failing to notify his supervisor of
appointments, violating AFR 35-10 (dress and appearance standards),
failing to follow proper work procedures causing a fuel spill;
uttering a nonsufficient fund check in the amount of $150.00; for
these infractions he was counseled both orally and in writing. He
received nonjudicial punishment consisting of correctional custody and
a suspended reduction in rank to the grade of airman for being drunk
and disorderly. He left his place of duty without authority, for this
offense, the suspension of his reduction in rank to the grade of
airman was vacated. He acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge, consulted with counsel, and submitted statements in his own
behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient, and recommended separation with an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
The discharge authority approved the separation and directed his
separation. He was separated from the Air Force on 17 Apr 91. He
served 3 years and 17 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states 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 did not submit any evidence or identify any
errors in his discharge processing.
A complete copy of the 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
18 Aug 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 character of service.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
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-
2006-02201 in Executive Session on 27 September 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jul 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00382
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that DPPRS was unable to determine the propriety of the discharge based on the lack of documentation in his record. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03771
For this incident, he received a record of counseling. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Dec 05. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2006-01182
On 10 July 1998, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for conditions that interferes with military service. _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03868
He recommended the applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge based on his discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities, citing the incidents for which the applicant received the above cited Article 15 punishments. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2006-02152
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is currently serving with the Montana Army National Guard and would like to have his RE code upgraded so he can enlist in the Naval Reserve or even active service. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed his separation. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01109
On 20 January 1984, the applicant failed to report for work. The discharge authority approved the recommendation on 16 May 1984, and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service and furnished a General Discharge certificate. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 16 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair Ms....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01950
On 21 July 1989, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00427
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01726
DPPRS notes 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 separation or RE code. DPPRS states a Records Transmittal Request on file indicates applicant submitted an Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation; however, the request is not on file in the applicant’s master personnel records. At the time members are...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00852
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 DD Form 214. The DPPRS 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 25 Mar 05, for...