RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00192
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was never in trouble while in the service and has never been in trouble
since.
His discharge should have been honorable.
After he injured his back, he sat around the barracks and did not have any
work. This seemed to cause trouble with his superiors and in turn got him
discharged from the Air Force.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, character
letters, and an arrest record from the Sidney, Ohio, Police Department.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 21 Nov 80. He served for a
period of 2 years, 9 months, and 5 days.
On 3 Dec 82, the applicant was arrested and charged with public
intoxication. During a search, it was discovered he had one small bag of
hashish in his possession. The applicant was given a Letter of Reprimand
on 28 Dec 82 and an unfavorable information file (UIF) entry.
On 11 Apr 83, the applicant was denied award of the Good Conduct Medal
based on being placed on a Control Roster.
On 4 May 83, the applicant was arrested and charged with driving while
under the influence of alcohol. He was given an LOR on 9 May 83 and a
UIF entry.
On 17 May 83, the applicant was notified of his ineligibility for
reenlistment.
On 4 Jun 83, the applicant was apprehended and charged with being drunk on
station. He was given an Article 15, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment, on
9 Jun 83. His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to
airman until 14 Dec 83 and he was required to forfeit $50 for one month.
On 3 Aug 83, the applicant was notified of pending discharge actions. The
commander cited continuous involvement in minor infractions as the reason.
The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged receipt. He submitted
statements in his own behalf on 8 Aug 83.
On 17 Aug 83, the staff judge advocate found the applicant’s discharge
legally sufficient.
On 6 Sep 83, the applicant’s commander set aside his punishment which
suspended his reduction to airman beyond 13 Dec 83, pursuant to the Article
15 he received on 9 Jun 83.
Records indicate the applicant had completed the Drug and Alcohol Program;
however, he was currently reenrolled in the program as he had been involved
in two alcohol related incidents since completion of the program the first
time.
The applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge on 25 Aug 83.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
was unable to identify with an arrest record based on the information
furnished (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2008-00192
in Executive Session on 7 May 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Lea Gallogly, Member
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Jan 08.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Negative FBI Report.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03896
On 28 Jul 83, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s unconditional waiver be accepted and that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 5 Aug 83, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for a pattern of misconduct - discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities, with an under other than...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02411 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. Should the Board decide to grant relief to the applicant, his RE code should be changed to 3K (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03317
On 12 Jan 83, applicant’s squadron commander recommended his request for discharge be approved and recommended a general discharge. On 8 May 83, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 22 Oct 85, w/atchs.
The recommendation for discharge for misconduct was approved and the commander directed that applicant be given an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. On 23 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10 (Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) in the grade of airman first class with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge and an RE code of 2B (Separated with other than an honorable discharge). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01049
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01049 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 October 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation and...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02355
Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for unsatisfactory performance was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31...