Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00485
Original file (BC-2009-00485.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-00485
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   be   upgraded   to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his discharge upgraded to honorable  to  reflect  his  current
status as a 23-year veteran.  He is currently  a  production  superintendent
of  a  major  security  company  and  is  actively   working   towards   his
certification.  He has been married over 18 years  and  has  a  14-year  old
son.  He is an active member of his church and holds a Trustee  position  on
the Board of Deacons.  He is President and  founder  of  a  nonprofit  youth
baseball organization and mentors to young men between the  ages  of  12  to
15.

He loves his country and would fight for her today if requested.   He  would
like his discharge to reflect the man he is today.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 Mar 82, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for  a  period
of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of Senior  Airman
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 85.

On 21 Aug 86, his  commander  notified  him  of  his  intent  to  issue  the
applicant a general discharge in accordance with Air  Force  Regulation  39-
10,  paragraph  5-46  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions.   His  specific
reasons were:

      1)  On 13 Oct 85, the  applicant  wrongfully  left  the  scene  of  an
accident in which he was involved as the driver  of  a  vehicle.   For  this
offense, he  received  an  Article  15  and  30  days  correctional  custody
(vacated).

      2)  On 6 Mar 86, he failed to go to his assigned place of  duty.   For
this offense, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

      3)  On or about 31 May 86,  he  failed  to  obey  a  lawful  order  by
driving while his driving privileges were revoked.   For  this  offense,  he
received an Article 15, was reduced in  rank  to  airman  first  class,  and
ordered to forfeit $50 per month for two months.

The applicant acknowledged notification of  his  rights,  consulted  counsel
and submitted statements on his behalf.  A review of the case by  the  Judge
Advocate Counsel office was found legally sufficient.  On  23  Sep  86,  the
discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s  general  (under  honorable
conditions)  discharge  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.    He   was
discharged on 14 Oct 86 and had served 4 years, 6  months  and  23  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  16
Mar 09, a copy of the FBI report and a request for post-service  information
were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within  30  days,  as
of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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 this application in Executive
Session on 27 August 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
      Ms. Debra M. Czajkowski, Member
      Mr. James G. Neighbors, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2009-00485:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 09, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Mar 09 w/atchs.




                                  KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00651

    Original file (BC-2005-00651.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the applicant’s base driving privileges were suspended. In addition, based on his overall record of service, the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, and the absence of evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00225

    Original file (BC-2009-00225.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had no idea about the effects of drug addiction, neither did the Air Force at that time. On 6 Mar 86, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of misconduct – drug abuse, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02745

    Original file (BC-2005-02745.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 69, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 24 Dec 70, in the grade of airman, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02355

    Original file (BC-2009-02355.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for unsatisfactory performance was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority. 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 General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01236

    Original file (BC-2005-01236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1980 he was rated by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) with the same rank and time in service (TIS). DPPP states a review of the applicant’s record reveals he was considered and nonselected for promotion to technical sergeant five times (cycles 82A6- 86A6) with the first contested report (8 July 1980) used in the promotion process. The complete DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01844

    Original file (BC-2009-01844.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, 23 Jul 09, w/atch. GREGORY A. PARKER Panel Chair AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS CASE TRANSMITTAL / COORDINATION RECORD IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: XXXXXXX BC-2009-01844 ROUTE IN TURN INITIALS DATE 1. B. TAYLOR, JR. Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Attachment: Record of Board Proceedings

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01383

    Original file (BC-2010-01383.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He wants his discharge upgraded in order to seek employment with the government. On 6 Dec 85, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03758

    Original file (BC-2005-03758.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    (3) On 5 June 1989, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for reporting for duty over two hours late. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on her request. Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 24 Jan 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00910

    Original file (BC-2009-00910.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It has been almost 25 years since his discharge. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629

    Original file (BC-2004-02629.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...