RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03790
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 JULY 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was given a general discharge by error.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Mar 85, for a period
of four years in the grade of airman basic. On 20 May 87, his squadron
commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air
Force for minor disciplinary infractions. The commander also recommended
that the applicant receive a general discharge.
The minor disciplinary infractions included two Article 15’s, one for
driving while intoxicated, and one for failure to go; one letter of
reprimand, for failure to go; and three letters of counseling, for failure
to go.
On 20 May 87, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge and failed to return the results of his Area Defense Counseling.
The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found it legally
sufficient to support discharge and recommended an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 2
Jun 87, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
Applicant was discharged on 12 Jun 87, in the grade of airman basic (E-1),
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for Misconduct-Pattern of Minor
Disciplinary Infractions, and received an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge. He served on active duty for two years, three months,
and six days.
Pursuant to the Board’s request on 24 Jan 07, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an
investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
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 with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of
the discharge authority.
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Additionally, the
applicant provided no facts warranting a change to his under honorable
conditions (general) discharge.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 Jan 07, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
On 2 Feb 07, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment (Exhibit F). To date, a response has not
been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 review of the available
records, the applicant’s 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. In addition, in view of
the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, we are not persuaded that
an upgrade of the characterization of applicant’s discharge is warranted on
the basis of clemency. 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 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-
03790 in Executive Session on 7 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
03790 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.
CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03785
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03920
On 11 July 1991, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 23 September 1991, the discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with a general characterization of service without P&R. The applicant was discharged effective 25 September 1991 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, a separation code of JKN (Misconduct – Pattern of Disciplinary...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03791
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03791 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: May 28, 2008 _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He was informed at discharge, that after a period of time, he could have his discharge certificate upgraded to...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03635
His punishment consisted of reduction in rank to the grade of airman basic (AB) (E-1) and restriction to the base for 60 days. On 11 February 1987, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge for misconduct under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 5-47b and 5-49c, with a general discharge. The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged without probation or rehabilitation with a general (under honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03385
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03385 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 MAY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and change his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. In regard to the RE code, the applicant has...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02748
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02748 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 MAR 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 9 May 1991, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2007-00040
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00040 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Jul 13, 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB reviewed all the evidence of record and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01430
On 6 Jul 06, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable. Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, DPPRS believes his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03944
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03944 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 30 JUNE 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general. On 13 Sep 54, the wing commander recommended the applicant’s request for discharge be accepted and he be separated with an...
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. ...