RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02826
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was in the Air Force for almost two years without incident before he was
wrongly discharged.
He was unhappy about an incident that occurred and voiced his opinion.
He thought his discharge was honorable until he requested a copy of his
discharge a few years ago.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 23 Oct 80 and served for
a period of 1 year, 3 months, and 10 days.
On 31 Dec 81, the applicant’s commander notified him of pending discharge
actions. The commander cited the applicant as being unable or unwilling to
expend the effort to become a productive member of the Air Force.
On 1 Aug 81, the applicant was counseled for failure to go. Additionally,
he had been counseled on 28 Jun, 10 Jul, and 19 Jul 81 for failure to go.
On 10 Aug 81, the applicant received a Letter of Admonishment for failure
to go.
On 2 Sep 81, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to
obey a lawful order. Specifically, he reported for training in street
clothes and was ordered to return home and report back in uniform. He
failed to return to duty.
On 23 Oct 81, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to obey an
order or regulation.
On 7 Dec 81, the applicant received an Article 15, Record of Nonjudicial
Punishment, for failure to go. Specifically, he failed to attend a
Departure Briefing at the Base Theater at the prescribed time, and without
authority, leave from his appointed place of duty, and failed to follow
lawful orders to vacuum offices and clean window tracks, all on 4 Dec 81.
In addition, he received a suspended reduction in grade to airman and was
ordered to forfeit $75 per month for two months.
On 11 Dec 81, the applicant was charged with failure to repair.
Specifically, he failed to show for a scheduled Missile Procedures Training
session.
On 14 Dec 81, he received an Article 15 for failure to go at the prescribed
time to his appointed place of duty. He also received a reduction in grade
to airman basic.
He was in upgrade training from 26 Jun to 26 Aug 81 but failed his initial
upgrade stand board evaluation on 25 Aug 81. Although he passed his re-
check evaluation on 27 Aug 81, he failed a recurring evaluation on 21 Oct
81, at which time he was reentered into upgrade training. On 14 Dec 81,
the applicant was withdrawn from upgrade training due to failure to expend
the effort to progress.
On 13 Jan 82, a discharge evaluation officer was assigned. The
evaluation officer reported the applicant attributed many of his problems
to not having a car when he initially arrived at the base. The applicant
stated he became depressed and was unable to expend sufficient time and
effort on his military responsibilities during Jul and Aug of 1981 because
of military pay problems. In addition, he felt that the only visibility he
got was for the things he did wrong, even though he did put forth an honest
effort to be a good airman. The evaluation officer determined the
applicant was unsuitable for further military service and not a suitable
candidate for rehabilitation. He further stated the applicant’s military
service record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable
discharge.
The applicant acknowledged the evaluation and submitted a statement
indicating he wanted out of the Air Force because he felt he put forth a
better effort doing something that he enjoyed rather than remaining in the
Air Force and being unhappy. He used taxis and the bus to get around but
that became expensive. Finance added to his problems by shortening his
checks or telling him that he was not going to get any money at all. This
caused him to be late or a no-show because he was trying to get it
resolved. In his summary, he stated he felt it would be a waste of the Air
Force’s time and money and his if he remained in the Air Force.
On 25 Jan 82, the legal office found the case legally sufficient and
recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge for apathy
and defective attitude. The discharge authority concurred and directed the
applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A,
paragraph 2-4c.
The applicant was discharged on 1 Feb 82 with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
provided a copy of an Investigative Report, 305985VA5, which is at Exhibit
C. On 2 Oct 07, a request for post-service information and a copy of the
FBI report were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30
days (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF FBI REPORT/POST-SERVICE REQUEST:
The applicant provided a brief overview of his military career and events
leading to his discharge. Since discharge, the applicant states he began a
career as an electrical apprentice and worked for over 10 years in the
electrical field. He studied accounting while attending Washington
Business School, worked as an accounting clerk, and his most recent
position has been with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
He further states there was a point in his life when things got out of
control due to substance abuse; however, he has been drug free since 2003
and is now a born-again Christian. The applicant states he now owns his
own business and has included character references for review.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no
evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge
processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The
applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the
characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the
governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses
committed. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency;
however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us
to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
recommend granting the relief sought.
4. 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing 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-2007-02826
in Executive Session on 28 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2007-
02826:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Aug 07.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. AFBCMR Letter, w/atch, dated 2 Oct 07.
Exhibit E. Extract, AFI 36-3208.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 29 Oct 07.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03103
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03103 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His characterization of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We considered...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03888
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-03888 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00071
On 11 Mar 82, the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 29 Jan 81 through 28 Jan 82, was referred to the applicant. Time lost for the following periods: 28-31 Oct 81, 15-16 Dec 81, 29 Jan- 1 Feb 82, 16-21 Feb 82, and 20 May 82-23 Sep 82. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jan 05 for...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02843
On 9 Aug 82, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to report for duty at the appointed place and time. d. On 15 Sep 82, he received an LOC for failing to adequately support his dependent. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00882
On 4 Feb 82, in a Waiver of Disposition Board Proceedings, the applicant voluntarily indicated he no longer wished to participate in the 3320th Correction and Rehabilitation Squadron (CRS) Program at Lowry AFB, CO. On 4 Mar 82, the 3320 CRS commander notified the applicant he was recommending a general discharge for failure to complete the Rehabilitation Program and because of evidence of misconduct documented in the applicant’s military record. After 2 years, 10 months, and 15 days of...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00826
Evaluation in the disability evaluation system should have followed where the most likely recommendation would have been unfit for duty. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
The fact is, the applicant presented himself to mental health services during his period of service with apparently bonafide evidence of psychotic hallucinations/behavior and this was not considered in his discharge processing. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 17 Aug 98 for review and response....
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-004691
On 10 Mar 82, he was discharged from the Air Force with service characterized as UOTHC. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03192
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03192 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and the narrative reason for separation changed. DPSOS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors...