Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03437A
Original file (BC-2005-03437A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03437A
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant's appeal for reconsideration, he requests clemency to  have
his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 December 1979,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

The applicant previously submitted a request to have his  records  corrected
to reflect his under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  be  upgraded
to honorable; Item 11 of his DD Form 214  be  changed  from  55110-Pavements
Maintenance Helper to Bomb and Gun Range Specialist; award of the Air  Force
Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), National Defense Service  Medal  (NDSM),  Kosovo
Campaign Medal (KCM), Armed Forces Service Medal (AFSM), Air Force  Training
Ribbon (AFTR), United Nations Medal (UNM), NATO Medal for Yugoslavia  (NATO-
Y and the Cold War Certificate (CWC).  For an accounting of  the  facts  and
circumstances surrounding the applicant's request,  and  the  rationale  for
the earlier decision by the Board,  see  the  Record  of  Proceedings,  with
attachments, at Exhibit H.

On 3 September 2006, the applicant submitted a Freedom  of  Information  Act
(FOIA) request to obtain statistical information.   On  14  September  2006,
the Board staff informed the applicant that his FOIA request  was  forwarded
to the appropriate office for review and response.  On 10 October 2006,  the
Board staff in response  to  the  applicant’s  FOIA  request  forwarded  the
requested statistical information (Exhibit I).

On 24 November 2006, the applicant submitted a reconsideration  request  for
clemency  to  have  his  under  honorable  conditions  (general)   discharge
upgraded to honorable (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.     After  careful  consideration  of  the  applicant’s  reconsideration
request and the documentation submitted in support of his  appeal,  we  are
not persuaded to override the Board's original decision.   The  applicant’s
contentions are duly noted, however, the Board finds no impropriety in  the
characterization of applicant’s discharge.   It  appears  that  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we
do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or
that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the
time of discharge.  We therefore conclude the discharge was appropriate  to
the existing circumstances.  The applicant has submitted  evidence  of  his
post-service accomplishments and while we commend him on his activities, we
do not find this evidence  sufficiently  persuasive  to  warrant  clemency.
Therefore, in view of  the  foregoing,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

2.    The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
03059 in Executive Session on 30 January 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
      Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03059 was considered:

      Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 18 Oct 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit I. FOIA Request and AFBCMR Response.
      Exhibit J. Applicant’s Reconsideration Request, dated
            24 Nov 06.




                                             WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00655

    Original file (BC-2006-00655.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged on 15 April 1968 with 3 years, 8 months and 19 days of active duty service. As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03788

    Original file (BC-2005-03788.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore no evidence was found in the limited military records or in the applicant’s submission to verify he was wounded while being held as a POW. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. White-Olson, Member The following documentary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01816

    Original file (BC-2006-01816.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s records reflect he declined participation in the MGIB on 1 August 2000 and acknowledged he would not be able to enroll in the MGIB at a later date. The law stipulates that all MGIB eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are given a one-time opportunity to disenroll should they desire not to participate in the program. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence which shows to our...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00456

    Original file (BC-2006-00456.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the PH be denied. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. The applicant stated he received...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1986-01756-2

    Original file (BC-1986-01756-2.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He cites another serviceman who received the MOH for heroic service in attempting to rescue a fellow officer from a flaming aircraft in 1920. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request be denied. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, the Board denied the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00535

    Original file (BC-2006-00535.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the PH be denied. They state the PH is awarded for wounds received as a direct result of enemy action and the wounds must have received treatment by medical personnel. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00365

    Original file (BC-2006-00365.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00365 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 AUGUST 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. The regulation in effect at that time required that a member be issued an undesirable discharge. Copy of Directive cc:...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02171

    Original file (BC-2006-02171.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02171 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 FEB 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 31 January 2006, be changed in Section V, Line 10 to reflect she completed five classes towards her Community College of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00637

    Original file (BC-2006-00637.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00637 INDEX CODE: 128.00 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to repay all charges associated with the nontemporary storage (NTS) and have his shipping entitlements reinstated so he can reship his household goods (HHG) at government expense. Therefore, we agree with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02848

    Original file (BC-2006-02848.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 27 Oct 06 for review and comment within 30 days. 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...