Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02377
Original file (BC-2006-02377.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02377
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.02
                       COUNSEL:  NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 FEBRUARY 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  discharge  be  changed   to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He understood his discharge characterization would  be  upgraded  after  10
years.  He is in the process of completing a drug program and would like to
go back to school and get a degree as a  counselor  for  drug  and  alcohol
dependency.  He would like to attend the  Veterans  Affairs  rehabilitation
program and change his life.

In support  of  his  request,  applicant  provides  a  personal  statement.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 January 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  for  a
period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman (E-
2).

On 22 April 1981, the applicant received an Article 15 for seven  counts  of
failure to go.

On 6 October 1981, after consulting military legal  counsel,  the  applicant
requested he be discharged under AFM 39-12, para 2-78, for the good  of  the
service.  The applicant admitted to the theft of a JVC portable  stereo  and
cassette recorder.  On 20 November 1981, in accordance with AFM  39-12,  the
commander initiated discharge  proceedings  against  the  applicant.   In  a
legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate  found  it
legally sufficient and recommended that the  applicant  be  discharged  from
the Air Force with  a  discharge  under  other  than  honorable  conditions,
without the opportunity for probation and  rehabilitation.   On  9  December
1981, the discharge authority directed  that  the  applicant  be  discharged
from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12,  paragraph  2-78,  for
the good of the service, with a  type  of  discharge  as  under  other  than
honorable conditions.  The applicant was  discharged  on  18 December  1981.
He served 11 months and 7 days on active duty.

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  FBI  provided  a  copy   of   an
Investigative Report, No. 234583W5, 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, 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 D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant on  9 February
2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,  this  office
has received no response (See Exhibit E).

On 20 February 2007, a letter was forwarded to applicant suggesting that  he
consider providing evidence pertaining to his post-service  activities.   On
22 February 2007, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded  to  the  applicant
for review and comment.  On 12 March 2007, the FBI report  was  returned  to
sender for reason of “Inmate Paroled.”

_________________________________________________________________

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  that
would lead us to believe the actions taken  to  effect  his  discharge  were
improper, or that the information in his discharge case file  is  erroneous.
In addition, in view of the contents of the  FBI  Identification  Record  we
are  not  persuaded  the  characterization  of  the  applicant’s   discharge
warrants an upgrade to honorable on the basis of clemency.  In view  of  the
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find  no  basis  to
favorably consider his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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-2006-02377
in Executive Session on 28 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
            Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
            Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02377 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record Number 234583W5,
                 dated 9 Feb 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jan 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Feb 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Feb 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 07, w/atch.





                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03919

    Original file (BC-2006-03919.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03919 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 JUN 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that he be discharged with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03830

    Original file (BC-2006-03830.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 October 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. On 6 February 2007, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 14 days (Exhibit G). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03782

    Original file (BC-2006-03782.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03782 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 JUN 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. On 1 February 2007, a copy of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01232

    Original file (BC-2004-01232.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01232 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd 11 May 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 14 May 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00767

    Original file (BC-2007-00767.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of the applicant’s discharge, AFM 39-12, Chap 2, paragraph 2-25, stated an airman discharged under this section should be furnished an Undesirable Discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a given case warrant a general or honorable discharge (Exhibit C). The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. Although the applicant did not specifically...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00295

    Original file (BC-2006-00295.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and she provided no facts warranting an upgrade of her discharge. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Feb 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03785

    Original file (BC-2006-03785.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged on 29 Mar 73. 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 file is erroneous. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jan 07; AFBCMR dated 26 Jan 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00909

    Original file (BC-2006-00909.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Mar 74, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment in the form of forfeiture of $50.00, 15 days of extra duty, and a reduction in grade from airman to airman basic suspended until 15 Sep 74, for disobeying a lawful order not to have visits of the opposite sex in dorm rooms from 2300 to 1000 hours, on or about 13 Mar 74. On 15 Oct 74, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment in the form of $100.00 forfeiture for disobeying a lawful order not to depart the team after lights out...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00044

    Original file (BC-2007-00044.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he was never notified of being discharged because he had opted for an early out. Applicants states he visited legal personnel concerning the issue of racism; however, he was told there was nothing that could be done and it was best if he just got out of the military. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00030

    Original file (BC-2004-00030.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 April 1972, the applicant’s commander forwarded the request to the group commander, recommending approval of the applicant’s request for discharge. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 17 days on active duty. The applicant has provided no evidence indicating the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.