RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03368
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he washed-out of the Air Traffic Controller career field,
he was not offered an opportunity to transfer to the Electrical
Power Production career field, which he was under contract for.
The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his
appeal.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 4 May 1982 and was promoted to the grade
of airman (E-2) effective 4 November 1982.
On 12 November 1982, the applicant was disenrolled from the Air
Traffic Controller course due to academic deficiency and,
recommended for further training in a less technical field.
Between 1 July 1982 and 2 December 1982, he received six reports
of counseling. On 7 December 1982, he received Article 15
punishment for being derelict in the performance of his duties,
in that he negligently failed to remain alert while on post as a
dormitory guard. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $100
of his pay, a suspended reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1),
and restricted to the confines of the base for 30 days.
On 17 December 1982, the applicant was notified of his
commanders intent to recommend he be discharged for
unsatisfactory performance with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification and elected to waive his rights to consult counsel
and to submit statements in his own behalf. On 20 December 1982,
the Chief, Civil Law Division, found the case to be legally
sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a
general characterization of service for unsatisfactory
performance under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10,
Chapter 5, Section E, paragraph 5-26, without probation or
rehabilitation.
On 21 December 1982, the discharge authority approved the
recommended discharge. On 22 December 1982, the applicant was
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
He served 7 months and 19 days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an
Investigation Report (Exhibit C).
On 26 October 2010, the applicant was given an opportunity to
submit comments about his post service activities and in response
to the FBI Report (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has
received no 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 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. Furthermore, we do
not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant
has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service
activities. Based on the foregoing, we find 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-03368 in Executive Session on 16 June 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-03368 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 10.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 10, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01967
We note the documentation submitted in support of his post service activities; however, we do not find it sufficient to support changing his characterization of discharge. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01967 in Executive Session on 10 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00704
On 24 September 1959, his commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-16, Section B, with a general discharge. 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 B.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01400
d. The applicant received numerous counselings and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) documenting his disrespectful attitude and substandard military bearing. Based on the information and evidence provided, they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). On 29 June 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide information regarding his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01422
On 16 December 1982, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge after completing a period of 1 year, 3 months and 20 days total active service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02540
On 27 June 1979, the discharge authority determined that a general discharge was appropriate in light of the applicants overall military record. On 29 June 1979, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge after completing a period of 2 years, 8 months and 18 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01153
On 26 August 1982, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for dereliction of duty. When his wife who was also an active duty member had an affair he became very depressed. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01153 in Executive Session on 21 June 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02355
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-04674
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04674 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 24...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03029
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 23 March 1982 in the grade of airman (E- 2). On 19 April 1983, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00315
He completed a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 3 days of active service and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was doing well in the Air Force until he came home and found his wife in bed with another airman, whom she eventually married. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the...