RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01414
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable and his reenlistment code (RE) be changed to one that would
allow him to enlist in the Army.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since his discharge in 1986, he has striven to better himself in every
way possible. He spent four years in college and has been a
mechanical/electrical engineer for the past 12 years. He is devoted
to his family, fitness and health. He donates hundreds of hours of
time and resources every year to a non-profit animal shelter. He has
been an upstanding citizen of his community for many years. He notes
his credit score is 744 and he has never had any infractions with the
law. He enjoys competing in marathons and endurance sports. He
recently took the ASVAB test in order to reenlist (he scored a 93) and
found out that his reenlistment (RE) code he received at his discharge
was one that would not allow reenlistment. He feels a strong
injustice is being served when he has worked so hard for atonement in
himself only to be punished 22 years later by the foolish actions of a
19 year-old airman at the time. He feels the original punishment he
received was heavy-handed and was in response to the Graham-Rudman-
Holling Balanced Budget Act that had many leaders of all the service
branches scrambling to cut their budgets by any means necessary. His
punishment consisting of loss of rank and forfeiture of pay was just
and fair and should have been considered sufficient for a first time
offense of an otherwise outstanding airman. He would like the
opportunity to enlist in the Army.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and copies of statements of support.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 March 1984. He was
progressively promoted to his highest grade held of Airman First Class
(E-3) with a date of rank of 23 May 1985. On 3 February 1986, he
received an article 15 for the wrongful use and distribution of
marijuana on different occasions between the dates of 1 September 1985
to 15 November 1985. His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to
airman (E-2) and forfeiture of $100. On 14 April 1986, his commander
recommended he receive a general, under honorable conditions (UHC)
discharge in accordance with Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10 for
commission of a serious offense – drug abuse. As was Air Force
policy, his commander considered the applicant for Probation &
Rehabilitation (P&R) but decided to deny P&R because of the
applicant’s distribution of marijuana to other airman. Applicant met
with counsel and submitted statements on his behalf. On 22 April
1985, his general discharge was found legally sufficient. He was
discharged effective 12 May 1986 after serving for 1 year, 8 months,
and 29 days.
The applicant appealed to the Discharge Review board (DRB) to have his
general discharged upgraded to honorable. The DRB convened on 4 June
1987 and denied his request.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
None. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his
discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17, Unfitness,
(Exhibit C). Nor has he shown the nature of the discharge was unduly
harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed. At the time of
the applicant’s discharge, AFR 39-17, paragraph 8, stated that when
discharged because of unfitness, an Undesirable Discharge (UD) will
be furnished. However, in 1959, AFR 39-17 was changed to state that
an airman discharged under this regulation should be furnished an
undesirable discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a given
case warrants a general or honorable discharge. Criteria for the
issuance of an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge is
outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See Exhibit D). Notwithstanding
the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to
grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined.
Attached at Exhibit E is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force
Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of
characterization of service and how standards have changed since
1959.
_________________________________________________________________
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 with regard to upgrading his
general discharge to an honorable discharge. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the actions his commander at the time took
regarding his general discharge, reduction in grade and forfeiture of
pay. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing
regulation and was found to be legally sufficient. We find no
evidence to indicate that his general discharge from the Air Force was
inappropriate or otherwise undeserved. We find no indication of error
in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has
been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he
has suffered from an injustice that would merit an upgrade of his
discharge. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we
find no basis upon which to favorably consider his request.
4. Notwithstanding the above, we do not believe he should be denied
the opportunity to apply for enlistment with the service component of
his choosing. Whether or not he is successful will depend on the
needs of the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that
he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service. Therefore,
we recommend the applicant's records be corrected to the extent
indicated below.
5. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 12 May 1986, he was
separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 1.2
(Secretarial Authority) with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of
3K.
______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-01414 in Executive Session on 14 June 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
Mr. Michael F. McGhee, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Excerpt, AFR 39-17, dated 9 Feb 54.
Exhibit D Excerpt, AFR 39-10, undated.
Exhibit E. Memo, AFBCMR Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.
JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR BC-2007-01414
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 12 May 1986,
he was separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 1.2
(Secretarial Authority) with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of
3K.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00727
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00727 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under honorable conditions (UHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17, Unfitness, (Exhibit C). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01099
The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00794
On 7 August 1961, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 11 April 1958, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04393
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04393 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Examiners Note: The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17A (unfitness) (extract copy of applicable portion attached as Exhibit D)....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04971
In response to the request, the applicant states that he is almost 81 years old and his friends and relatives are not aware of his undesirable discharge. His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. At the time of the applicants discharge, AFR 39-17, paragraph 8, stated that when discharged because of unfitness, an Undesirable Discharge (UD) will be furnished. However, in 1959, AFR 39-17 was changed to state that an airman discharged under this regulation should be furnished...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02411
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02411 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant responded to a request for post-service information and stated that he now has Alzheimers disease and cannot remember why he received an undesirable discharge. At the time of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01101
The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10. Attached at Exhibit D is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of characterization of service and how standards have changed since 1959. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00771
In addition, based on his overall record of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the contents of the FBI report, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Air Force Regulation 39-17A.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03136
In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicants discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we found the evidence submitted insufficient to compel us to recommend granting the request on that basis. ________________________________________________________________ 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;...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00599
The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and 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. He provided...