RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04303
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was given high marks; however, once he returned stateside, he
was told that he was not meeting standards. It was his intention
to make a career out of the Air Force; however, because of his
commanding officer, he was cheated out of his Air Force career.
In support of his appeal, the applicant, with the assistance from
the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), submits copies of his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,
and performance reports during the period of 7 Jun 77 – 20 Mar 85.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jun 77. He
reenlisted on 1 Jun 82 for a period of six years. On 1 Apr 82, he
was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.
On 21 Mar 85, the squadron commander notified the applicant of
administrative discharge board (ADB) action for minor disciplinary
infractions, and that he could be separated with a under other than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The specific reasons for
the proposed action were:
a. On 10 Feb 83, he missed a mandatory formation.
b. On 3 Mar 83, he missed a mandatory formation.
c. On 2 Jun 83, he was an hour and twenty minutes late for
work.
d. On 29 Aug 83, he was approximately 45 minutes late for
work.
e. On 28 Aug 84, he was derelict in the performance of his
duties.
f. On 27 Sep 84, he did not get a haircut when instructed to
do so.
g. On 13 Nov 84, he was an hour and twenty-five minutes late
for work.
h. On 8 Nov 84, he failed to report to his place of duty,
for with he received an Article 15, on 18 Nov 84.
i. On 13 Feb 85, he was derelict in the performance of his
duties.
On that same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification and that his separation could result in an UOTHC
discharge. On 1 Apr 85, the area defense counsel requested an
extension in the processing of the discharge action until
12 Apr 85. On that same date, after consulting with counsel, he
acknowledged his rights associated with an ADB hearing and waived
his right to submit statements in his own behalf.
The ADB recommended separation with a general discharge, without
probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The staff judge advocate
reviewed the ADB proceedings, found them legally sufficient, and
recommended the applicant receive a general discharge without P&R.
The discharge authority approved the general discharge without P&R.
On 13 May 85, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-10, by reason of Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary
Infractions, with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions). He was credited with 7 years, 11 months, and 6 days
of active duty service.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 23 Dec 08, that, on the
basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record
(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 during the discharge process. 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 directive, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the
offenses committed. We note the lack of post-service documentation
and in view of the seriousness of the offenses committed during the
period of service under review, we are not persuaded that an
upgrade of his general discharge is warranted. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
___________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2008-04303 in Executive Session on 29 July 2009, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Negative FBI Response.
JOSEPH D. YOUNT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01166
On 22 Nov 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of staff sergeant. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. A complete copy of the Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03141 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2B” to “3A.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was inequitable and his service should have...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03901
In a letter dated 18 Jan 06 (Exhibit C), HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 requested the applicant explain why she felt she should have been awarded the grade of captain when she entered active duty. The time between her commissioning as a lLT in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Nov 78 and when she entered active duty on 10 Jan 79 is not active service nor creditable as active service for retirement. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.
Air Force Regulation 36-89, Oct 77, stated eligibility criteria for promotion to captain as two years time in grade as a first lieutenant. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY97A (3 Feb 97) lieutenant colonel selection board. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00805
Several post-trial clemency evaluations were submitted and, while some recommendations were mixed, the majority recommended the trial recommendations of clemency be accepted. On 5 Dec 96, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB). In the attached statement, the applicant indicates he would appreciate an upgrade to a general discharge if honorable was not possible.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01602
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 214 and his application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03658
The applicant’s performance reports are provided at Exhibit B. Available records pertaining to the applicant’s medical issues are at Exhibit B, and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides medical details in his advisory at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s service records revealed no reference to participation in combat or events similar to those described by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00041
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 21 Nov 85, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge without opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. Kendrick., Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00041: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 07, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 07.