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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He does not think the type of discharge is in error or unjust. He is
simply asking for an upgrade and change to the narrative reason.
In support of his request, he provided a copy of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Sep 81, as an basic
airman for a period of four years.
On 26 Nov 84, his commander notified him that he was recommending him for
discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation
(AFR) 39-10 for drug abuse. The specific reason for the discharge action
was that on 8 Nov 84, the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongful use
of marijuana.
In the notification for discharge, the commander cited the following
additional derogatory information:
a. He received dishonored check notifications on 21 Oct 82, 30 Sep
83, 30 May 84 and 1 Jun 84.
b. He was counseled for financial irresponsibility on 1 Nov 82 and
17 Aug 83.
c. On 5 Nov 84, he tested positive for marijuana.
d. On 4 Sep 84, he was placed on the control roster for substandard
duty performance.
e. On 22 Nov 84, he received a Letter of Admonishment for financial
irresponsibility.
The commander advised him of his right in this matter, he acknowledged
receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with legal
counsel waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.
On 5 Dec 84, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate
recommended discharge with a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
On 13 Dec 84, the discharge authority directed discharge without probation
and rehabilitation. He was discharged on 14 Dec 84. He served three
years, three months and six days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends the requested relief be denied. DPSOS states the
applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors or
injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge. Based upon
the documentation in the applicant's file, DPSOS believes his discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation and the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any
facts to warrant a change to his discharge or narrative reason for
separation.
AFPC/DPSOS's complete 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 11 Jan
08, for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, in our
opinion, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he
has suffered either an error or injustice. Based on the evidence of
record, it appears that the characterization of his service and the
processing of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance
with the applicable Air Force regulation. 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 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-2007-03192,
in Executive Session on 31 Mar 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. James G. Neighbors, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-03192 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 07, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Negative Reply, dated 25 Jan 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Dec 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 08.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02975
On 4 Mar 72, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability. The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states his discharge was based entirely on his mental disability. The applicant's case was not eligible for a referral for a Medical Evaluation Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04282
We took notice of the 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 our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03270
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 10 Oct 84, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge. On 19 Aug 82, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03970
On 22 Dec 82, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for financial irresponsibility and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to sergeant. In their view, the Tower Amendment was not applicable to the applicant because he was reduced in grade prior to completion of 20 years of active service. In order for the applicant to have been eligible for retirement pay recalculation under the Tower Amendment, he would have needed 20 years of active service at the time he held 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 | 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 | CY2010 | BC-2009-04564
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-04564 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Block 24, Character of Service, on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “Not Applicable” to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. Although the applicant states he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03301
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03301 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Oct 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00704
They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting a change to his character of service. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Mar 05 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00841
On 2 Feb 07, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as under honorable conditions (general) and was issued an RE Code of 2B (involuntarily separated with a general discharge). The Board acknowledged the applicant’s high motivation to re-enter military service; however, the Board denied an upgrade of his RE code. As noted in the statement of facts his RE code has been administratively...