RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00359
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 AUGUST 2008
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to a
honorable discharge.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was young airman and was financially irresponsible. He has
learned from his mistakes, and deeply regrets the errors made and is
trying to correct his mistakes.
No supporting documentation was submitted.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 17 July
1987 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.
On 15 April 1988, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for minor
disciplinary infractions. The specific reasons for the discharge
action were:
a. On 15 January 1988, the applicant received a
Dishonored Check Notification for writing a check with insufficient
funds to the Base Exchange.
b. On 8 February 1988, the applicant received a
Dishonored Check Notification for writing a check with insufficient
funds to the Base Exchange.
c. On 10 February 1988, the applicant received a
Dishonored Check Notification for writing a check with insufficient
funds to the Base Exchange.
d. On 17 February 1988, the applicant received a Record
of Individual Counseling (ROC) for receiving a Dishonored Check
Notification for writing checks with insufficient funds to the
Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) Club.
e. On 26 February 1988, the applicant received an ROC
for receiving a Dishonored Check Notification for writing checks with
insufficient funds to the Base Exchange
f. On 10 March 1988, the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information Action for being
financially negligent to the NCO Club and the Army/Air Force Exchange
Service (AAFES).
g. The applicant on 24 March 1988 received an Article 15
for writing checks to the NCO Club with insufficient funds.
The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him;
and that he also had the right to submit statements in his own
behalf; and that failure to consult counsel or to submit statements
would constitute a waiver of his right to do so.
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the
applicant had been given numerous chances to prove himself worthy,
with negative results. The commander did not recommend probation and
rehabilitation because the applicant was given the opportunity
through correctional custody, but failed to complete the initial
entry phase of the program. Furthermore, the applicant stated to the
Area Defense Counsel (ADC) that he would go absent without leave
(AWOL) if he had to stay in correctional custody.
On 19 April 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel
waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.
On 12 May 1988, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge
advocate recommended the applicant receive an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
On 16 May 1988, the discharge authority approved the separation and
directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 23 May 1988 under the
provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Administrative
Separation of Airman (misconduct-pattern of minor disciplinary
infractions), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
He was credited with 10 months and 7 days of active duty service.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached
at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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. He provided no
facts warranting a change in his character of service.
AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 23 February 2007, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
A copy of the FBI Investigation was forwarded to the applicant on
13 March 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response (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 an error or an 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
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust. The applicant was discharged for a pattern of
misconduct. His records reflect he was counseled on numerous
occasions in effort to improve his conduct and these rehabilitative
efforts failed. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-00359 in Executive Session on 26 April 2007 under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 07.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Feb 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 07.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Mar 07, w/atch.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00190
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00190 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 MAY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that he considered the applicant’s military record...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03404
On 6 January 1989, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. On 18 February 1988, the applicant received a No-Show Letter for failing to report for a scheduled appointment on 11 January 1988. p. On 18 February 1988, the applicant received a UIF entry for his delinquent account with the NCO Club. In regard to the RE code, the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the assigned RE code was in error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03412
Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). After thoroughly reviewing the evidence or record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00235
On 30 September 1981, an Article 15 for absenting himself from his place of duty without authority, from 16 September 1981 to 18 September 1981, and failing to go to his place of duty on 14 September 1981. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he makes no excuses nor does he deny any of the facts concerning his general discharge. He can...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00755
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00755 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 SEPTEMBER 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01461
DPPRS states 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 new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. Therefore, based on the available...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03497
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03497 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 May 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The bases for the recommendation were: (1) she received an Article 15 for failure to go. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00306
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00306 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 JUN 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. f. On 6 August 1981, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), for being delinquent to the NCO...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00296
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00296 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 JULY 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 23 June 1981, the commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02039
The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states, 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. ...