RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00606
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was the result of an error in judgment on his part when he,
as a young airman, drove on base under the influence of alcohol. His
mistake has come back to haunt him as he was recently awarded a position as
an Inspector for the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) that was
denied due to the general discharge. Since the time of his discharge, he
has been a model citizen, has not been in trouble with the law, and been
married for eighteen years with two children. He worked for United
Airlines for 16 years, until 9-11, and then got laid-off due to the
cutbacks. He now works for Bell Helicopter as a supervisor, hoping to work
for the DCMA.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and
copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty; reduction-in-force letter from United Airlines; resume; education
certificates and diplomas; appreciation and accomplishment certificates;
Air Force training certificates; and three letter of recommendation.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 September 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at
the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years. He
was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 25 December 1985.
On 8 October 1986, he received nonjudicial punishment for operating a
privately-owned passenger vehicle on the base while drunk. His punishment
consisted of reduction to the grade of airman (Amn/E-2), forfeiture of $150
per month for two months and 15 days extra duty. That portion of his
punishment which provided for reduction in grade was suspended until 7
April 1987 unless sooner vacated.
On 29 April 1987, his commander notified him of his intent to recommend he
be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a general discharge
for willfully disobeying an order on 2 October 1986 by operating a vehicle
on base and for operating it while drunk; for being disorderly on 9 January
1986 by harassing two civilian females; for speeding on or about
9 September and 5 November 1985; and for other minor administrative
reasons.
The discharge action was found legally sufficient on 13 May 1987, less the
two off-base speeding charges as there was a lack of evidence to support
the charges. The discharge authority approved the commander’s
recommendation and the applicant was separated with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R)
for misconduct – pattern of discreditable involvement with military or
civilian authorities. He had served two years, eight months and two days
of active duty.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to
the applicant.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 29 April 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2008-00606:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Notification, dated 26 Feb 08.
GREGORY A. PARKER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03360
On 5 September 1986, the applicant was released from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service for misconduct – drug abuse. On 8 February 2008, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03810
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03810 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 27 Oct 61, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability. The applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-01292
On 25 November 1987, his commander notified him he was being involuntarily discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. DPFOC contends no error or injustice occurred during the discharge and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, DPFOC recommends relief be denied ANG/DPFOC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02542
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS The commander informed the applicant of his rights, to include being represented by legal counsel and presenting his case to an administrative discharge board and, on 3 December 1987, he waived his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board, contingent on his receiving no less than a general discharge. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02542 in Executive Session on 11 February 2009...
On 1 November 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force, in the grade of airman (E-2), for a period of four years. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant stated that during his four years on active duty he did receive two Article 15s, and they were both alcohol related and were off duty. After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00454
We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Feb 07. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02269
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D & E). The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02502
He was later told he would not meet the board for at least six months and unless he signed the waiver he would spend the next six months waiting for the board in jail. He was 22 years of age at the time and had less than six months left on his four year tour. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00358
It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Novel, Panel Chair Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit...