RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02059
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to an honorable or general (under honorable conditions)
discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He served honorably for ten years and does not believe the
punishment fits the crime. At the time, he was going through a
divorce and he had various personal issues.
He recognizes he acted inappropriately between September and
October 1986. He requests the conditions of his discharge be
reviewed and changed to an honorable discharge by taking into
consideration that he served honorably for over ten years.
He has been a model citizen since his discharge and has a son
currently serving in the military. He believes he has been a
positive influence on him by encouraging him to join the
military.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a
listing of his military accomplishments, extracts of his
personnel records, character reference letters, and statements
from his counsel.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Jun 82 and
served for a period of 4 years, 5 months, and 2 days. He was
credited with 5 years, 10 months, and 13 days of prior active
service.
Records reveal the applicant was notified of pending discharge
action on 29 Oct 86. Specifically, the commander cited minor
disciplinary infractions as the basis for discharge.
The applicants misconduct included three Article 15s, Record of
Nonjudicial Punishment, for violation of restriction and
disobeying a lawful order, absent without leave (AWOL), and
failure to go; vacation of his noncommissioned (NCO) officer
status; a memorandum for record for a bad check, two 60-day
delinquent account notices (NCO Open Mess and Rod and Gun Club);
dishonored check notices and a dishonored check; a Letter of
Counseling; and suspension of his check cashing privileges.
The applicant waived his rights to a hearing before an
administrative discharge board and to submit statements in his
own behalf. Further, he acknowledged that fact that he could
receive a UOTHC discharge.
On 4 Nov 86, the staff judge advocate found the case legally
sufficient. On 7 Nov 06, the discharge authority directed
discharge.
On 17 Nov 86, the applicant was discharged with an under other
than honorable conditions discharge and a narrative reason for
separation of misconduct-pattern of minor disciplinary
infractions.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, states they were
unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of the
information furnished.
_________________________________________________________________
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. The Board majority finds insufficient relevant evidence has
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or
injustice. Although the applicant contends he has been a model
citizen since discharge, the Board majority notes he has failed
to provide sufficient post-service information since discharge.
Further, the Board majority notes the applicant has not
identified an error or injustice in his discharge processing.
Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, the Board majority finds no basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number
BC-2009-02059 in Executive Session on 12 August 2010, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the applicants
request. voted to grant the applicants request but did not
desire to submit a minority report. The following documentary
evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03309
k. On 4 Apr 79, the applicant was in violation of AFR 35-10 and again failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. On 9 Nov 79, 22 Nov 79, 2 Dec 79 and 11 Dec 79, the applicant's commander received notice from American Express stating that the applicant's account was overdrawn. On 21 Jan 80, 5 Feb 80, 11 Feb 80, 14 Mar 80, 15 Mar 80 and 15 Apr 80, the applicant's commander received notice from AAFES stating that the applicant had written numerous dishonored checks.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02356
DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02356
DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-205-02185
On 9 Sep 86, the commander notified the applicant that the results of the positive urinalysis would not be used to characterize his service. On 29 Oct 86, the applicant was advised that at anytime before action on the recommendation for discharge was complete, he could apply for retirement. To date, a response has not been received.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01241
Since his discharge from the Air Force 33 years ago, he has been a decent law-abiding citizen. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicants discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Nov 13 Exhibit D. Email,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02457
He was sentenced to be discharged from the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge. They indicated based upon the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. 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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01159
On 20 Sep 74, the applicant was furnished a UOTCH discharge and credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 14 days of total active service, which included 79 days of lost time for the period 1 Jul 74 through 20 Sep 74. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02125
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02125 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The military judge found him guilty on all charges and sentenced him to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for 18...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03126
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03126 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded and his Reentry (RE) code of 2B (involuntarily separated under AFR 39- 10, with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge)...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0177
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDIN.E ENITIAL) “ GRADE AFSN/SSAN ” AB tee = 7 - . CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 1'1902-0177 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Major eh recommended that Senior Airman be fesued an under other than honorable conditions discharge without suspension for probation and rehabilitation (P & R)- After consulting legal counsel, Senior Airman QQ...