RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00410
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged after making a life lesson mistake. He was tried
by court-martial for distribution and use of a devastating drug
called “Ecstasy” back in 1991. He received a reduction in grade
from E-4 to E-2 and served three months confinement for his poor
decisions. He had a very promising career in the Air Force, had
achieved the rank of senior airman (E-4) “below the zone,” and had
sewn his (E-4) sergeant stripes on six months before.
At the time of his trial, his peers had leniency on him and his
family and allowed him to stay in the Air Force after serving
confinement. However, his commander made the decision to
administratively discharge him, after serving a humiliating
confinement, time away from family, and parading him around the
base for all to see him just doing work details and going to the
chow hall.
He made some incredibly stupid mistakes, but has since led a very
honorable and healthy life with a beautiful family and a good job
for the last 16 years.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a personal
statement.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the period under review, the applicant reenlisted on
13 Aug 90 for a period of four years. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4).
On 21 Mar 91, the applicant was convicted by General Court-Martial
for two specifications of wrongful use and distribution three to
four times on diverse occasions, between Dec 88 and Mar 89, of the
drug Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA/Ecstasy), a schedule I
controlled substance. His punishment consisted of reduction in
rank from sergeant to airman, three months confinement, three
months of hard labor without confinement, and two months of base
restriction.
On 2 Oct 91, the applicant’s commander recommended administrative
discharge action against him for misconduct – drug abuse. On that
same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification and waived his right to consult counsel and submit
statements in his own behalf. On 8 Oct 91, the staff judge
advocate found the case file legally sufficient to justify an
administrative discharge and recommended the applicant be
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge,
without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). On 10 Oct 91, the
discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general
discharge, without P&R.
On 11 Oct 91, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-10 by reason of misconduct – drug abuse, with a character of
service of general (under honorable conditions). He served
4 years, 9 months, and 20 days of active duty service [excludes
3 months lost time for confinement (21 Mar through 5 Jun 91)].
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an
investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.
On 21 Apr 09, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the
applicant for comment. At that time, he was also invited to
provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since
leaving the service (Exhibit D). 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, based on his overall record of service, the
seriousness of the offenses which led to his court-martial and
subsequent administrative separation, the FBI Report of
Investigation, and the absence of post-service documentation, we
are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his
discharge is warranted. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2009-00410 in Executive Session on 2 June 2009, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
Ms. Debra M. Czajkowski, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 09, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Apr 09.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02600
In support of this application, the applicant submits copies of his APRs. He was discharged on 21 Jun 88; he served 5 years, 9 months and 11 days on active duty. On 2 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied a similar request by the applicant.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02889
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of injustice regarding the applicant’s request that her general discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 16 February 1993, she was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01665
To date, no response to this request has been received. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jul 09.
Unfortunately, the AF Form 418 denying applicant reenlistment is not on file in his military personnel record. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Oct 98, w/atchs; Letter, dated 2 Oct 98; Statement BARBARA A. WESTGATE Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-00035 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01811
In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s UOTHC discharge. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00586
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which confirms the applicant’s admitted two DUI incidents and is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. ...
The applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge he received. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01842
Based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The majority of the Board concludes the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing the discharge proceedings were improper and the characterization of the discharge was inappropriate based on the existing circumstances. The following documentary evidence was considered under Docket Number BC-2006- 01842: Exhibit A. DD Form 149,...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01941
The military judge considered this letter as well as other evidence presented by the applicant when determining the appropriate sentence for his criminal conduct. We also find no evidence to indicate the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his conviction by a general court-martial and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We considered upgrading...
The BCD reflects the applicant’s characterization of active duty service. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.