Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01665
Original file (BC-2009-01665.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-01665
            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:

No contentions and no documentation in support of his request.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Jan 81, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for  a  period
of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  Airman  First
Class effective and with a date of rank of 13 Jan 82.

On 12 Mar 84, his  commander  notified  him  of  his  intent  to  issue  the
applicant a general discharge in accordance with Air  Force  Regulation  39-
10, paragraph 5-47 for misconduct.  His specific reasons were  that  between
Jan 82 and Mar 84, he received:

      1)  An Article 15 for  failure  to  go.   For  this  offense,  he  was
ordered to forfeit $100 (suspended) and reduced to the grade of Airman.

      2)  An Article 15 for communicating a threat.   For  this  offense  he
was reduced to the grade of Airman Basic (suspended) and ordered to  forfeit
$75.

      3)  Two Letters of Reprimand (LORs)  (one  for  wrongfully  possessing
some quantity of marijuana and one for failing  to  maintain  his  dormitory
room within prescribed standards);

      4)  Seven counseling’s (four for financial irresponsibility,  one  for
presenting a check to the Base Exchange which was  subsequently  dishonored,
one for displaying a poor attitude and lack of  respect  towards  superiors,
and one for failing to report to two urinalysis testing’s).

The applicant acknowledged notification of his rights.  He waived his  right
to counsel and declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.   A  review
of the case  by  the  Assistant  Staff  Judge  Advocate  was  found  legally
sufficient.  On 23 Mar 84, the discharge authority approved the  applicant’s
general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  without  probation   and
rehabilitation.  He was discharged on 26 Mar 84 and had served  3  years,  6
months and 14 days on active duty.

The following is a resume of his Airman Performance Reports (APRs):

Close-out Date   Overall Rating

  12 Jan 82      8
      12 Jan 83        7
      13 Nov 83        8
      11 Mar 84        5

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  12
Jul 07, a copy of the FBI 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 10 Jul 09, a request for post-service information was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for response within  30  days.   To  date,  no  response  to  this
request has been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 October 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2009-01665:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 09.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jul 09.



                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02600

    Original file (BC-2009-02600.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2009-01881

    Original file (BC-2009-01881.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01881 INDEX CODE: A67.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01602

    Original file (BC-2007-01602.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00509

    Original file (BC-2006-00509.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS complete 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 17 Mar 06 for review and comment within 30 days and on 17 Apr 2006, he was forwarded a copy of the FBI report. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03875

    Original file (BC-2005-03875.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 03875 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUNE 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03234

    Original file (BC-2008-03234.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Jun 84, the board agreed with the findings and recommendations of the applicant’s commander. 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 E. Letter, Applicant, not dated.

  • 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 | CY2009 | BC-2008-01842

    Original file (BC-2008-01842.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02180

    Original file (BC-2006-02180.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 27 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administration Separation of Airman (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 Aug 84, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of Request for discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with service characterized as UOTHC. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00410

    Original file (BC-2009-00410.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a reduction in grade from E-4 to E-2 and served three months confinement for his poor decisions. 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. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge...