RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00948
INDEX CODE: A93.01/02
XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was based on one isolated incident in 18 months of service during his enlistment. At that time, he was 19 years old and fraternizing with airmen from a different upbringing. Being away from home and the guidance of his parents, he affiliated with older airmen and made unwise decisions. He was a model airman and loved his job. Since being discharged, he has worked in the private sector without incident and has no criminal record or history. He is now a mature 29 year-old citizen and father. The legacy of military service is strong in his family and he wants to uphold these standards for future generations.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 Jun 98 for a period of six years. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class effective and with a date of rank of 18 Jul 98.
On 17 Nov 99, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his involuntary discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct based on drug abuse under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. The reason for the action was the applicant’s repeated wrongful use of marijuana between on or about 1 Jan 99 and on or about 28 Feb 99 in violation of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
On 19 Nov 99, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, consulted legal counsel and waived his right to submit any statements in his behalf.
On 24 Nov 99, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the commander’s request for involuntary discharge on 9 Dec 99.
On 15 Dec 99, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct) and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 18 days of active service.
On 29 Mar 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial because the applicant has not demonstrated an error or injustice. Based on the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence of any error or injustice in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his discharge.
A complete copy of the DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 21 Aug 09 for 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 applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for misconduct based on drug abuse was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and within the commander’s discretionary authority. He has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of his service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. 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 discharge or change his reason for separation.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2009-00948 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 09.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Jul 09.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 09.
ANTHONY P. REARDON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2005-01773
On 19 Sep 96, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to honorable. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The following...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | bc-2008-04097
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04097 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code and reentry code be changed to allow him to enlist in the Army. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00758
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating the RE Code of 2C is correct based on the applicant’s entry level separation with uncharacterized service. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00758 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01397
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01397 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was discharged in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), rather than senior airman (SrA); and that he was entitled to the Purple Heart, Bronze Star Medal with Valor (BSM w/V), Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02885
The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, incorrectly reflects the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason as “MBK” and “completion of required active service.” The separation code should reflect “MND” and a narrative reason of “Miscellaneous/General Reasons.” HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOA reviewed the application and recommends denial, stating, in part, that on 15 Jun 05, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03120
She provided no facts warranting changing the narrative reason for separation to “fulfillment of service” or a change to her RE code. Therefore, her uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 26...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03720
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied her request to upgrade her discharge (Exhibit B). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request and states, in part, the document in the applicant’s records supports the basis for her discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04436
DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Sep 12 for review and comment within 15...
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00054
CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. In addition, he was 3 overnment Credit Card account in the amount of received a Letter of Reprimand w/atch, dated 29 Oct 99. minimum Air Force s received a referral “2” EPR for failing to maintain I k. On 3 Dec 99,...