RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00372
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge he was young and immature. His performance was never in question. He received awards, decorations and letters of recognition. He is requesting this upgrade in order to receive medical benefits. He was laid off his job which terminated his insurance benefits.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 February 1987 in the grade of airman basic.
On 17 December 1990, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46. The specific reasons for this action were as follows:
1. On 14 April 1989, the applicant operated a passenger vehicle while drunk and on 21 April 1989, he disobeyed an order not to drive a privately owned vehicle; he received an Article 15 dated 28 April 1989. His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman, a forfeiture of $250.00 of pay for two months, and 30 days correctional custody.
2. On 2 July 1989, the applicant failed to report for bay orderly duties. His punishment consisted of the Article 15 Vacation Action dated 13 July 1989 - he was reduced to the grade of airman.
3. On 29 September 1989, the applicant was involved in an alcohol related incident at a civilian establishment; he was removed from the alcohol rehabilitation program as a failure. His punishment consisted of a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).
4. On 5 February 1990, the applicant was disruptive in the dormitory. His punishment consisted of a Letter of Counseling (LOC).
5. On 2 October 1990, the applicant was unavailable while on standby. His punishment consisted of an LOR.
6. On 3 October 1990, the applicant was disorderly and assaulted another individual. His punishment consisted of an Article 15 - he was reduced to the rank of airman and was restricted to Bitburg AB for 45 days, and ordered to perform 45 days extra duty.
7. On 15 November 1990, the applicant displayed unprofessional conduct at work. His punishment consisted of an LOC.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel the applicant elected to submit a statement on his own behalf.
The staff judge advocate reviewed and found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge.
On 28 December 1990, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed discharge with a general discharge.
The applicant was discharged on 7 January 1991. He served 3 years, 10 months and 11 days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit C.
On 14 May 2009, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation and a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response.
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 that would lead us to believe the characterization of his service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to his misconduct. In addition, an FBI record provided information pertaining to the applicant indicating recent involvement with law enforcement authorities. In view of this fact, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00372 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 December 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 May 2009.
Vice Chair
4
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03886
In support of his request the applicant submits a personal statement and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. In view of the forgoing findings the Board further concluded there was no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus, the applicants discharge should not be changed. Exhibit C. FBI Report Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 29 March 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01359
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 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 process. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02668
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS At the time he was disciplined, he requested that he be discharged and was subsequently rendered a general discharge. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02668 in Executive Session on 16 December 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03534
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03534 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 MARCH 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code (K14) and reenlistment (RE) code (2H) be changed to allow him to reenter into military service. DPPRS’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01168
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. On 10 Sep 90, the applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01168
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. On 10 Sep 90, the applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01105 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman (E-21, which was the grade he held at the time of discharge. Applicant alleges that the discharge authority discharged him prematurely before completion of an investigation of three Inspector General (IG) complaints he filed and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01469
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01469 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 November 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His characterization of service be upgraded from general to honorable. On 17 April 2007, the SAF/MRB Legal Advisor provided a generic opinion concerning service...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03548
Applicant was discharged on 29 February 1988, in the grade of airman basic with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions). The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his general (under honorable conditions) discharge upgraded to honorable. Therefore, based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00623
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. As of this date, this office has received no response. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.