Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02491
Original file (BC-2009-02491.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-02491
            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:

His discharge was unjust because he was only offered disciplinary action  or
separation.  His evaluations were excellent and he  accepted  the  discharge
as a way out because transfer was not an option.

He worked as an aircraft mechanic on B-52H model aircraft and lived  in  the
dorm.   He  was  disciplined  several  times  for  being  late  even   after
purchasing several alarm clocks and setting them all.  He  later  found  out
another airman was shutting off the circuit breaker to his  room.   When  he
tried to  explain  this  to  his  supervisor,  it  was  not  received.   His
supervisor repeatedly  reprimanded  his  subordinates  but  he  himself  was
subsequently disciplined and reduced in rank.

In  support  of  this  application,  the  applicant  submits  his   personal
statement.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Dec 85, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for  a  period
of six years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior  airman,
with a date of rank of 30 May 88.

Between Apr 86 and Jan 90,  the  applicant  received  five  (5)  Letters  of
Reprimand and fifteen (15) Letters of Counseling.

On 6 Sep 90, his  commander  notified  him  that  he  was  recommending  his
separation from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, para  5-46,
for minor disciplinary infractions.  A review of the discharge case file  by
the Staff Judge Advocate was found legally sufficient.  On 13  Feb  90,  the
discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s  general  (under  honorable
conditions)  discharge  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.    He   was
discharged on 16 Feb 90, and had served four  years,  two  months  and  four
days on active duty.

A resume of his  Airman  Performance  Reports/Enlisted  Performance  Reports
follows:

Close-Out Date   Overall Rating

12 Dec 86        9
12 Dec 87        9
12 Dec 88        9
12 Dec 89        2

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the  basis  of
the data furnished they were unable to identify with an arrest record.

On 1 Dec 09, a request for post-service information  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for response within 30  days.   To  date,  no  response  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  AFBCMR  BC-2009-02491  in
Executive Session on 12 Jan 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 09 w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 09, w/atch.




                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01168

    Original file (BC 2009 01168.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. On 10 Sep 90, the applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01168

    Original file (BC-2009-01168.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. On 10 Sep 90, the applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03250

    Original file (BC-2003-03250.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that he was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed on 15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0531

    Original file (FD2002-0531.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The 58 MED GP/CC recommends the respondent be separated from the United States Air Force with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation pursuant to AFR 39-10, Section H, paragraph 5~-47(b) for a pattern of misconduct. The respondent has met with military counsel and has elected to submit statements regarding this discharge action. Forward the case to |2AF/CC recommending the respondent receive an honorable discharge; or c- Separate the respondent with a general discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00462

    Original file (BC-2003-00462.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The XXX TAW commander testified that he was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant might have had, that the applicant had family and financial problems, and that while the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem, it was possible he did have an alcohol problem. He testified the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem. Diagnosis was probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer the applicant again to Social Actions and, if retained, to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03431

    Original file (BC-2002-03431.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A Report of Individual Counseling dated 6 Nov 87 indicated the applicant had been advised he was being considered for discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. On 8 Feb 88, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS provide their rationale for recommend denial.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04642

    Original file (BC 2013 04642.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04642 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude that his contributions to his community since leaving the service are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03099

    Original file (BC-2005-03099.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03099 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 APR 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 12 Aug 88, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03754

    Original file (BC-2006-03754.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s last period of active duty in the Air Force began on 8 Feb 82. On 23 Mar 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit E).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03836

    Original file (BC-2012-03836.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his chain of command fabricated two additional LORs in order to involuntarily dismiss him from the military, and then denied his reenlistment in Mar 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an...