Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03409
Original file (BC-2009-03409.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-03409
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant’s request is unclear; however, it  appears  he  is  requesting
his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  so
that he can seek help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not guilty of any crime.  He was told he was being cross-trained  and
that his discharge was for the good of the service.  He has health  problems
and is in need of help.

The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Nov 72.  On 6 Feb  75,
he requested he be discharged for the good of the service  and  acknowledged
his rights should  his  request  be  approved.   His  commander  recommended
disapproval of his request for the following reasons:  On  11  Feb  75,  the
applicant  was  placed  in  pre-trial  confinement   when   contraband   was
discovered  during  a  routine  inspection  of  his  dormitory  room.    The
contraband  included  a  knife  with  a  six-inch  blade,  another  airman’s
identification card, suspected drugs and credit cards belonging to  another.


His  commander  recommended  the  applicant  be  furnished  an   undesirable
discharge.  The staff judge advocate found the case legally  sufficient  and
concurred  with  the  commander’s  recommendations.   On  26  Feb  75,   the
discharge authority approved the recommended discharge.  On  3  Mar  75,  he
was discharged with an UOTHC character of service.  He  served  1  year,  10
days and 3 months on  active  duty  with  154  days  of  lost  time  due  to
confinement.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify an arrest record pertaining  to  the  applicant  on  the  basis  of
information furnished.

On 24 May 10, a request for post-service information was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  no  response  has
been received (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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-2009-03409  in
Executive Session on 7 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 09.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 May 10.




                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01877

    Original file (BC-2008-01877.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01877 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02864

    Original file (BC-2009-02864.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-02864 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant was discharged on 3 Jun 81. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03997

    Original file (BC-2012-03997.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Dec 74. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists for us to recommend an upgrade of the applicant’s UOTHC discharge. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00462

    Original file (BC-2010-00462.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00462 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 21 Jun 76, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Section F. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00857

    Original file (BC-2006-00857.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00857 INDEX CODE: 110.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Sep 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). The discharge authority concurred and approved his request. We took notice...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02833

    Original file (BC-2003-02833.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 Jan 76, his commander imposed Article 15 punishment in the form of a 60-day restriction to base, forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months, and a suspended reduction from sergeant to airman first class (A1C) until 30 Jun 76 for breaking restriction to the base on or about 18 and 28 Nov 75. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his discharge should be upgraded. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01527

    Original file (BC-2012-01527.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01527 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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 during...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00992

    Original file (BC-2006-00992.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00992 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETTION DATE AUGUST 5, 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable; his special court-martial conviction be overturned and removed from his personal records; his narrative reason...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05304

    Original file (BC 2012 05304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05304 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On that same date, the staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. On 29 Dec 77,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00600

    Original file (BC-2013-00600.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also notified the applicant that he was recommending he receive an UOTHC discharge instead of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for misconduct was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discharge authority’s discretion. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on...