RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02375
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 FEBRUARY 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge is inequitable. When he was off-duty, he drank too much
which led to his transgressions. Under current standards, he believes he
would have received an honorable discharge. He is proud of the positive
things he accomplished while in the Air Force.
Applicant submits no supporting documentation. Applicant’s complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 February 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), with a date of rank of
13 February 1982. He received four Airman Performance Reports closing 12
February 1982, 29 November 1982, 19 August 1983 and 8 April 1984, in which
the overall evaluations were 9, 8, 9 and 7 respectively.
On 3 October 1982, he was charged with failure to obey a lawful order not
to drive on base for one year from 29 September 1982 to 28 September 1983.
For this incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), was imposed. He received a suspended reduction to airman,
and $150 forfeiture of his pay per month for two months.
On 21 September 1983, he received a letter of reprimand for failure to
maintain enough funds in his checking account to cover a $50.00 check.
On or about 27 January 1984, the applicant had a female in his dormitory
room. For this incident, his suspended reduction was vacated and $100
forfeiture of his pay was administered.
On or about 11 March 1984, the applicant operated a motorcycle while
intoxicated. For this incident, punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, was
imposed. He was reduced to the grade of airman basic.
On 9 April 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings
against him under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47 for a pattern
of misconduct. The applicant was notified of his commander’s
recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended. He was
advised of his rights and consulted with counsel and elected to submit
statements in his own behalf. In a legal review of the discharge case
file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended
that he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and
concurred with the commander that the applicant not be considered for
probation and rehabilitation. On 17 April 1984, the discharge authority
directed that he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge. Subsequently, he was discharged on 18 April 1984. He served 3
years, 2 months, and 6 days on active duty.
On 24 June 1992, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied
the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they
were unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. DPPRS
further states that the applicant has not provided any new evidence or
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing.
The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant on 22
September 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
A letter was forwarded to applicant on 23 October 2006 suggesting he
consider providing evidence pertaining to his post-service activities.
Applicant responded by providing a personal statement stating he has worked
hard to be an honorable, community minded person. Getting kicked out of
the Air Force was a wake up call for him. After twenty-three or so years
later, he is ashamed of his behavior which resulted in his discharge and
humbly requests consideration for clemency. The applicant’s complete
response is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After careful consideration of the
applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no
evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service.
Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which
would lead us to believe the information in his discharge case file is
erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or that his
commanders abused their discretionary authority. However, should the
applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post service activities,
testimonials of friends and responsible citizens who know him, he may, of
course, submit a request for clemency at a later time.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2006-02375
in Executive Session on 5 December 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
02375 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Aug 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Aug 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 Oct 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated.
MICHAEL V. BARBINO
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02856
18405TA3, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, they conclude that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00041
On 18 March 1999, his commander notified the applicant of his recommendation to discharge the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5.51.1 of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, and Air Force Personnel Directive 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, with an UOTHC discharge. He feels if he had received the proper medical treatment for his depression he would not have received a UOTHC discharge. The characterization of discharge which was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03532
The commander was recommending the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge based on the following: (1) On 10 April 1984, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. Exhibit E. FBI Investigative Report.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02026
For this offense, he was reduced to the grade of airman first class and forfeited $150.00. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper, or that the information in his discharge case...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00299
The board recommended he be discharged because of unsatisfactory duty performance with a general discharge without rehabilitation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting upgrading the applicant’s discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02853
DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. Applicant states several of the facts outlined in the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02853
DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. Applicant states several of the facts outlined in the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01274
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. 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 C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 May 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02269
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D & E). The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02785
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his SPD code. According to the Military Personnel Flight Memorandum 04-35, the SPD code for individuals being released under the LADSC Waiver Program will be “MND” and the narrative reason will be “miscellaneous/general reasons.” The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge...