RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03252
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Apr 24, 2008
____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The events leading up to his discharge were due to his alcoholism and if
there had been a program for alcoholism he would not have been discharged
under the conditions he was and would have benefited greatly.
The applicant states he has lived a productive and alcohol free life since
1975. He served the U.S. Army and Navy and received honorable discharges
from both branches. Lastly, the applicant stated he was truly ashamed of
what happened and has had to live with it for 38 years.
In support of his request, the applicant provided copies of his honorable
discharge certificates from the U.S. Army and Navy and his UOTHC discharge
from the Air Force.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
____________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty Air Force on 23 Feb 66 and served 2 years
and 6 days. He received two performance reports with markings in the
highest 10 percent.
The applicant received three Article 15s (25 Oct, 29 Dec, and 30 Dec 67)
for failure to go during a 2-month period and was reduced in grade twice
within a 2-day period. He also received 60 days restriction to base (31
Dec 67 to 29 Feb 68) with the last Article 15.
Between 3 and 5 Jan 68, the applicant was involved in a serious incident
which resulted in court-martial charges being preferred. The applicant
broke restriction and threatened to kill a commissioned officer and his
first sergeant. However, he was charged with disrespect to a commissioned
officer and two charges of failure to go on 18 Jan 68.
The applicant submitted an application for discharge for the good of the
service on 19 Jan 68. The request for discharge was approved 17 Feb 68.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify with an arrest record
pertaining to the applicant (Exhibit C).
____________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial stating 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 provide any evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.
The complete evaluation of AFPC/DPPRS is at Exhibit D.
____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Dec
06 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
not received a 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 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. Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. 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 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 2006-03252 in
Executive Session on 18 January 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Oct 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Nov 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Dec 06.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00071
On 11 Mar 82, the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 29 Jan 81 through 28 Jan 82, was referred to the applicant. Time lost for the following periods: 28-31 Oct 81, 15-16 Dec 81, 29 Jan- 1 Feb 82, 16-21 Feb 82, and 20 May 82-23 Sep 82. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jan 05 for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00166
However, after thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that the comments of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility are supported by the evidence of record. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the applicant's submission, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03541
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy an AFCM citation and certificate awarded to a former member of his unit which was awarded during the time he alleges he was assigned. However, after review by AFPC/DPPRY, it was discovered the applicant is also entitled to the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor and one oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the Air Force Longevity Service Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01797
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Jul 05 for review and comment within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01914
The specific reasons for this action were on 3 Jun 87, he received a Letter of Counseling for engaging in a fight with his roommate; on 18 May 05 he failed to return five video tapes in a timely manner to a local video store; on 5 May 87, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for passing counterfeit bills on two separate occasions; on 9 Mar 87, he received an LOR for writing a worthless check; on 18 Feb 87, he received an LOR for writing another worthless check; on 6 Feb 87, he received an...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03606
Applicant was discharged on 10 May 84, in the grade of airman first class (E-3), under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge was consistent...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02860
The Recommendation Letter and Legal Review could not be found in the available records. As he has provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge, denial is recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we conclude the general discharge was appropriate given the applicant’s misconduct and that the RE code, which was driven by the discharge, is correct.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00209
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPPRS affirms based on the documentation in the master personnel records, the separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the discretion of the separation authority.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03906
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. Applicant was honorably discharged on 6 Nov 03, in the grade of airman (E-2), under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. Applicant’s response to Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03220
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial and notes that, contrary to the suggestion by the applicant, he was offered an opportunity to request reinstatement to active duty as a major and he obviously opted for the alternative that awarded him service credit for those years without his having to actually return to active duty. In this particular case, the applicant, who was awarded retroactive service credit for the more than 12 years his record...