RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01155
INDEX CODE: 110.02
xxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 OCTOBER 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was young and dumb and got involved with a troubled married service
woman. It has been over twenty years since his discharge and feels that he
has paid his debt and should have his discharge upgraded to honorable. He
has been married for 16 years and his employment has been solid.
In support of his request, applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214,
Resume, and a Certificate of Appreciation from the Mayor of Las Vegas.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 14 April 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), with a date of rank of 1 May
1983. He received four Airman Performance Reports closing 13 April 1982, 4
March 1983, 4 March 1984 and 26 August 1984, in which the overall
evaluation were a 7, 9, 6 and 6 (9 being the highest rating), respectively.
On 23 February 1984, the applicant was tried by a general court-martial.
He was charged with violation of Article 127, communicating a threat (3);
and Article 121, wrongful appropriation. He was found guilty and was
sentenced to three months hard labor without confinement, reduction to E-1
and to forfeit $397 per month for 12 months.
On 1 August 1984, he pled guilty to reckless driving in Brevard County
Court, FL. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced.
On 9 April 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings
against him under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47 for a pattern
of misconduct. The applicant was notified of his commander’s
recommendation and that an under other than honorable conditions discharge
was being recommended. On 27 August 1984, after consulting counsel, the
applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an
administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less
than a general discharge. He indicated he understood that if the waiver
was not approved, his discharge would continue according to AFR 39-10. A
legal review by the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient
and recommended that the conditional waiver not be accepted. On 1 October
1984, the discharge authority approved the conditional waiver and directed
the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. Subsequently, he was
discharged on 5 October 1984. He served 3 years, 5 months, and 22 days on
active duty.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to
the applicant.
On 19 April 2007, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit
comments about his post service activities (Exhibit E). As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
None. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge
was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of
Airmen, paragraph 5-57b (Pattern of Misconduct – Conduct Prejudicial to
Good Order and Discipline) (extract copy of applicable portion attached as
Exhibit D). Nor has he shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh
or disproportionate to the offenses committed.
_________________________________________________________________
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 which
would lead us to believe that the information in his discharge case file is
erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or that his
commanders abused their discretionary authority. Accordingly, his request
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-2007-01155
in Executive Session on 12 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Acting Panel Chair
Ms. Donna D. Jonkoff, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
01155 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report, No. 6151,
dated 26 Apr 07.
Exhibit D. Excerpt of AFR 39-10, dated 1 Oct 84.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 Jun 07.
JAMES A. WOLFFE
Acting Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00321
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation, and we find no evidence to indicate his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01472
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01472 INDEX CODE: 110.02 xxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 23 December 1987, the discharge authority directed he be discharged with a general...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02253
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02253 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 JAN 2009 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His characterization of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. On 26 April 1985, he was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for a...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00706
They recommended applicant be discharged for drug abuse with a general discharge characterization. On 24 May 1993, applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), requesting that his records be reviewed and his discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03504
On 2 August 1983, the discharge authority approved and directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). On 28 December 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation concerning his activities since leaving military service.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03504
On 2 August 1983, the discharge authority approved and directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). On 28 December 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation concerning his activities since leaving military service.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01797
On 11 February 1988, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force (AF) under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10 for misconduct (conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.) The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01026
On 6 May 1985, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Enlisted Personnel, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-49(c) for drug abuse. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10, Enlisted Personnel, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-49(c) (Exhibit D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00750
He did on or about 14 March 1983, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Area Defense Counsel, 1330 hours in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, as evidenced by a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 16 March 1983. c. He did on or about 18 May 1984, fail to report to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Building 90726, training section as it was his duty to do so in violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, as evidenced by a Letter...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02614
The base legal office reviewed the case, found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...