RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00537
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 26 AUGUST 2008
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discriminated against by his squadron commander. He never received
an Article 15. He was discharged because he was put on extended light duty
for an injury he received off base while on active duty. His service was
honorable and he should be given an honorable discharge.
No supporting documents submitted.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 18 Jan 82.
On 14 Jan 85, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct
in accordance with AFR 39-10, Paragraph 5-47a. The reasons for the
commander’s actions were:
a. Wrongful use of marijuana during the month of Jan 83. Applicant
received a letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 3 May 83.
b. Failure to report for duty on 20 Sep 84. Applicant received a
letter of reprimand on 26 Sep 84.
c. Failure to go at the time prescribed on or about 14 Nov 84.
Applicant received an Article 15 by where he was reduced to the grade of
airman and ordered to perform 30 days extra duty.
The applicant acknowledged receipt on 18 Jan 85, consulted counsel and
submitted a statement in his behalf. The Staff Judge Advocate found the
discharge case legally sufficient. On 8 Feb 85, the Base Group Commander
approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant be
discharged for the reasons recommended by his commander, without the offer
of probation and rehabilitation. On 13 Feb 85, the applicant was
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He
served 2 years and 26 days on active duty.
On 13 Mar 97, the Air Force Review Boards Agency disapproved a similar
request by the applicant.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigative report
pertaining to the former member (Identification Record No. 3946X5) (Exhibit
C).
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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. The discharge was within the discretion of
the discharge authority. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his
discharge.
The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Mar
07 for review and comment within 30 days. A copy of the FBI report was
forwarded to the applicant on 19 Mar 07. As of this date, this office has
received no response to the aforementioned correspondence (Exhibit E).
________________________________________________________________
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 the 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.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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 submission of newly discovered relevant
evidence not considered with this application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 2 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Mr. Clarence R. Anderegg, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-00537:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 07 w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 07.
JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00091
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 he provided no facts warranting a change to his RE code, character of service, or narrative reason for separation The complete DPPRS evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00041
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 21 Nov 85, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge without opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. Kendrick., Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00041: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 07, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03698
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices during the discharge processing warranting a change in his RE code. The complete HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jan 07 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03041
On 23 Apr 84, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure in Drug Abuse Rehabilitation. On 24 Jun 83, he was entered into the drug rehabilitation program because his urine sample he submitted on 21 Apr 83 tested positive for marijuana. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. On 1 Nov 07, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629
The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01297
However, they did find based upon the record, applicant’s testimony, evidence provided by the applicant, that his reason for discharge was inequitable and directed his reason for separation be changed to “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” They further concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01602
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 214 and his application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01166
On 22 Nov 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of staff sergeant. ___________________________________________________________________ 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. A complete copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02655
On 13 Aug 70, the base commander recommended approval of an undesirable discharge. On 18 Aug 70, the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” On 24 Aug 70, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as other than honorable. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03317
On 12 Jan 83, applicant’s squadron commander recommended his request for discharge be approved and recommended a general discharge. On 8 May 83, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 22 Oct 85, w/atchs.