RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01308
INDEX CODE: 106.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Some of his behavior was a direct result of his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He is proud of his country, served during the Gulf War, has finally gotten his life together and is correcting errors, and would like for his discharge to reflect he is a proud American veteran.
In support of his appeal, he has submitted a copy of a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served as a dental assistant specialist in the Regular Air Force until his discharge.
On 13 January 1993, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:
Article 15 for, on or about 14 November 1992, wrongfully drinking while underage. Punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman (E-2), suspended until 2 June 1993, and forfeiture of $100 pay for two months.
Vacation of suspended Article 15 action for, on or about 24 December 1992, failing to obey a lawful order issued by a superior officer to remain in the Clovis-Portales areas during his holiday time-off, for which the applicant was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2). Although not listed in the commander’s notification letter, the vacation action also indicated the applicant did, on or about 16 December 1992, with intent to deceive, make a false official statement to a superior non-commissioned officer that he was not going to leave the local area during his holiday time-off.
The commander advised the applicant of his rights, and, on 19 January 1993, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a statement appealing that his discharge be characterized as honorable rather than general.
A legal review was conducted, and in an undated memorandum, the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be separated with a general discharge.
On 22 January 1993, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) for misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46, with a general (under honorable conditions) service characterization. He served a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 1 day of net active service.
The applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
21 Nov 1991 3
18 Jul 1992 4
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), , provided a copy of an Investigation Report which is at Exhibit C. On 19 May 2008, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. However, 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 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, based among other things, on the report provided by the FBI. 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-2008-01308 in Executive Session on 10 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Lea Gallogly, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 08, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. USDOJ FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 May 08.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02864
In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and concurred with the evaluation officer that the applicant not be considered for probation and rehabilitation. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Nov 07. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Nov 07, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02990
On 18 August 1981, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following: he did, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on or about 29 March 1981, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-4, Air Force Regulation 30- 2, dated 8 November 1976, by wrongfully transferring some amphetamines to an airman, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03197
On 22 Oct 64, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability. The evaluation officer conducted an interview with the applicant, reviewed his records and comments by his commander, and recommended his discharge from the Air Force with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03350
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03350 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. His supervisor and his education manager both wrote letters of support recommending he be discharged honorably. We took notice of...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02173
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors that occurred in the discharge processing, and provided no facts warranting an upgrade to his discharge characterization. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02173 in Executive Session on 27 January 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00390
Applicant was discharged on 17 Jun 72, in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (unsuitability), and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He served on active duty for a period of 2 years, 9 months, and 26 days. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03007
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes that his time in service including his previous five years of honorable service demonstrates that his discharge was rather harsh punishment for the trivial matter that occurred during his last enlistment. On 1 March 1960, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-16. After...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02037
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02037 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 DEC 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 14 Feb 91, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01789
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01789 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Dec 17, 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A resume of the applicant’s airman performance reports follows: CLOSE-OUT DATE OVERALL RATING 24 Sep...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01268
The commander further recommended in his notification for discharge that the applicant’s service be characterized as general. On 7 June 1977, the administrative discharge board recommended the applicant be discharged for misconduct because of a civil conviction with a general discharge, and he not receive probation and rehabilitation. The Board staff, on 16 June 2004, requested the applicant provide documentation regarding his activities since leaving military service (Exhibit G) and on 8...