RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02931
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was informed during his separation interview that his general discharge
would be changed to an honorable discharge in 12 months.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 July 1976. He served as
an Aircraft Maintenance Technician.
On 4 February 1983, applicant was notified by his commander of his intent
to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions
of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47. The specific reasons for this action follow:
a. On or about 19 August 1981 and on 20 August 1981, he failed to
report to duty. For these offenses he received a Letter of Reprimand
(LOR).
b. On or about 24 March 1982, he wrote a bad check to the Little Rock
Air Force Base Exchange. For this offense he was verbally counseled on 15
April 1982.
c. On or about 28 April 1982, he was placed on probation by a civilian
court. For this offense he received an LOR on 4 May 1982.
d. On or about 3 October 1982, he failed to report to duty on time.
For this offense he received an LOR on 7 October 1982.
e. On or about 26 November 1982, he failed to report to duty on time.
For this offense he received an LOR on 2 December 1982.
f. On or about 17 December 1982, he failed to report for duty. For
this offense he received an Article 15 on 23 December 1982 with a suspended
reduction to airman first class.
g. On or about 14 January 1983, he failed to go at the time prescribed
to his appointed place of duty. For this offense, the suspended reduction
as part of his Article 15 punishment imposed on 23 December 1982 was
vacated on 18 January 1983.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the
notification on that same date. On 4 February 1983, the applicant
submitted an unconditional waiver. He requested that he receive a general
discharge. In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff judge
advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. On
10 February 1983, the discharge authority concurred with the
recommendations and directed discharge with a general discharge. Applicant
was discharged on 14 February 1983. He served 6 years, 6 months, and 17
days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that they were unable to identify an
arrest record on the basis of the information furnished (Exhibit C).
On 17 December 2007, the Board staff requested the applicant provide
documentation pertaining to his post-service activities, within 30 days
(Exhibit D). The applicant provided a response, which is at 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 an 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.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a
personal appearance; and 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-
02931 in Executive Session on 6 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Mary Jane Mitchell, Member
Ms. Marcy C. Puckett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 September 2007, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Negative Reply, dated 5 December 2007
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 December 2007.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 December 2007.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-1987-03586
On 24 August 1984, applicant was discharged. In June 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his bad conduct discharge (Exhibit B). According to the record, the discharge board’s recommendation for discharge was made following a proceeding during which applicant was represented by counsel and his substantive and procedural rights were satisfied.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03027
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03027 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: MICHAEL VITERNA HEARING DESIRED: “UNSURE” MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 APRIL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The evaluation officer stated the applicant should be furnished a general discharge and should not be...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00005
Following his successful completion of training, the applicant was assigned to duties as an Bomb-Navigation Systems Mechanic and received three Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 21 February 1981, 21 February 1982 and 21 February 1983, in which the overall evaluations were “9,” “9,” and “6.” The applicant was promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 1981. The applicant has failed to provide this office with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02118
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02118 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 January 2009 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He is currently under treatment with mental health [sic] and the subject has bothered...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04304
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04304 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable or medical discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an UOTHC discharge. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 April 2013.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00157
In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of two VA Form 21-4138s, Statement in Support of Claim, a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, two letters from the American Legion submitting his application, a personal statement, his DD Form 214, his rebuttal to his discharge, the reverse side of an Airman Performance Report (APR) with comments and signatures dated 28 December 1984, a letter from the discharge authority directing...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03501
On 9 July 1986, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review board (AFDRB) requesting her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The board further concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of the discharge. Based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02790
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02790 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. c. On 8 December 1982, the applicant failed to report to his place of duty at the prescribed time and was derelict in the performance of his duty. The applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02833
On 13 June 1983, the applicant failed to report for duty. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge. 58130W9, dated 21 September 2007.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04059
g. LOR, dated 10 January 1986, for, on or about 9 January 1986, being disrespectful to an NCO by ignoring a request to return to the Orderly Room after being asked to do so on three occasions. ________________________________________________________________ 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...