Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02918
Original file (BC-2010-02918.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02918 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His uncharacterized entry level discharge be upgraded. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He is presently incarcerated in Los Angeles County and enrolled 
in a drug program. Upon his completion of the program, he needs 
to go to an in-patient program, possibly with the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) for some mental health treatment. 

 

He was 18 years old and immature when he was discharged. 
However, 27 years later, he realizes he has been in and out of 
prison his whole adult life because of drugs. 

 

A veteran’s representative advised him that the DVA could help 
him with his treatment if his discharge was upgraded. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides personal 
statements. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 84. 

 

On 14 Jun 10, the applicant received an Article 15, Record of 
Nonjudicial Punishment, for wrongfully possessing marijuana. He 
was ordered to forfeit $286 pay for one month. 

 

On 18 Jun 84, the applicant was notified of pending discharge 
action. Specifically, the commander cited unsatisfactory entry 
level performance or conduct as the basis for discharge. The 
applicant acknowledged receipt, waived his rights to consult 
counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

The staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and 
recommended separation with an entry level separation. On 


19 Jun 84, the discharge authority directed discharge. The 
applicant was discharged on 20 Jun 84, with an entry level 
separation with the narrative reason for separation of “entry 
level performance and conduct.” He is credited with one month 
of active military service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations (FBI) provided an investigative report, which is 
at Exhibit C. A copy of the report and a request for post-
service information was forwarded to the applicant on 29 Sep 10 
for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this 
date, this office has not received a response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or an injustice. We find 
no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge. 
It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate 
standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find 
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or 
that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which 
entitled at the time of discharge. Further, based on the 
contents of the FBI report, we do not find it appropriate to 
grant clemency. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-02918 in Executive Session on 7 December 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Sep 10, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03041

    Original file (BC-2007-03041.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 Apr 84, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure in Drug Abuse Rehabilitation. On 24 Jun 83, he was entered into the drug rehabilitation program because his urine sample he submitted on 21 Apr 83 tested positive for marijuana. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. On 1 Nov 07, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02979

    Original file (BC-2010-02979.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged on 1 May 85. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Sep 10, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03558

    Original file (BC-2009-03558.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant received an honorable character of service on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued for the period of 6 Sep 78 through 25 Jul 84. The applicant’s discharge case file is not included in his records. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 7 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01383

    Original file (BC-2010-01383.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He wants his discharge upgraded in order to seek employment with the government. On 6 Dec 85, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01505

    Original file (BC-2009-01505.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 Sep 94, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 29 Jun 09, the applicant provided a personal statement, a character reference letter, and excerpts from his military personnel records (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02580

    Original file (BC-2007-02580.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Sep 84, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force (AF) for misconduct. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. On 14 Sep 07, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy of his FBI report for review and comment within 30 days. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02198

    Original file (BC-2012-02198.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02198 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 25 Nov 83, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class. On 2 Jul 84, the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00683

    Original file (BC-2010-00683.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00683 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 9 Mar 84, he was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge and credited with 18 years, 1 month, and 16 days of total active service. ...

  • 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-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...