RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02977
INDEX CODE: 110.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The character of his discharge is inequitable and inconsistent with the
policies and traditions of the Air Force. His disciplinary problems arose
from continuous alcohol/marijuana abuse and other mind altering drugs. He
became addicted to alcohol and drugs after entering the Air Force. The Air
Force should have treated him for his addiction. He was an addict when he
was discharged and his pattern of improper conduct continued. Had he been
treated for substance abuse, his life style could have been corrected.
In support of his request, applicant submitted a personal statement and a
letter from his case manager.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 January 1973. On 17
January 1974, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending his
discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation
for Unsuitable; Unfitness or Misconduct; Resignation or Request for
Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the
Rehabilitation Program, paragraph 2-4c for Apathy, Defective Attitudes, and
Inability to Expend Effort Constructively. The specific reasons for this
action were that he received two Article 15’s, Nonjudicial Punishment, for
violation of Article 86, Absence without Leave; he received another
Article 15 for violation of Article 92, Failure to Obey Order or
Regulation; he received a Letter of Reprimand for speeding on base; and 13
counseling statements for various infractions.
On 17 January 1974, he acknowledged receipt and was advised of his right to
submit statements in his own behalf. In a legal review of his case, the
base legal office concurred with the commander and recommended a general
discharge.
On 28 January 1974, the discharge authority directed his discharge. On 4
February 1974, he was discharged in the grade of airman basic with a
general discharge. He served a total of 11 months and 28 days on active
duty.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
provided a copy of an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C. On 6
November 2008, a copy of the Investigative Report was forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date no
response has been received by this office.
On 17 September 2008, a request for information pertaining to his post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30
days. In response to the request, applicant provided personal statements
for the Board to consider, which are attached at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
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 his 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 an 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-2008-02977
in Executive Session on 6 January 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Audrey F. Davis, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 August 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Reports.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, 17 September 2008, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atch.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03922
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03922 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The findings and recommendations of the Board were approved on 10 June 1975. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03121
On 19 Jun 84, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. c. On 19 Apr 84, he received an Article 15 for striking another airman on 7 Apr 84 and failure to go on 11 Apr 84. d. On 14 Jun 84, he received an Article 15 for wrongfully possessing marijuana. The command and base legal office reviewed the case and recommended accepting the unconditional waiver and discharge with an UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00192
He was given an Article 15, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment, on 9 Jun 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 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00498
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00498 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 Jan 89, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for commission of a serious...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02977
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 02977 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 MARCH 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: EXAMINER’S NOTE: Due to applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02516
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s master personnel record (MPR) appears to have been lost or destroyed. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02931
On 4 February 1983, applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47. For this offense he received an LOR on 2 December 1982. f. On or about 17 December 1982, he failed to report for duty. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 December 2007.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03105
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03105 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg,...
The commander told him he could, but that he would have to receive and undesirable discharge; however, after his discharge he could request the Veterans Administration (VA) upgrade his discharge to general. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. Exhibit B.