Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2000-01878-2
Original file (BC-2000-01878-2.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
 
 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-01878 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be 
upgraded to honorable. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  was  discharged  with  a  UOTHC  discharge,  on 
30 Jul 92,  because  of  misconduct  –  pattern  of  discreditable 
involvement  with  military  or  civilian  authorities.    His 
discharge  was  based  on  numerous  incidents  of  misconduct  which 
led  to  Letters  of  Reprimand  (LORs)  and  Records  of  Counseling 
(ROCs) for failure to go, disobeying a lawful order, dereliction 
of  duty,  disrespect  to  a  superior  commissioned  officer,  and  a 
senior  non-commissioned  officer,  and  an  Article  15  for  driving 
while  intoxicated.    At  the  time  of  his  separation,  he  was 
credited  with  7  years,  7  months  and  27  days  of  active  duty 
service. 
 
A  similar  appeal  was  considered  and  denied  by  the  Board  on 
16 November  2000.    For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and 
circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  separation,  and,  the 
rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record 
of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit F. 
 
The  applicant  requested  reconsideration  of  his  application,  by 
letter,  dated  4  Apr  01;  however,  on  7  Aug  01,  he  was  advised 
that  his  request  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for  reconsideration 
by the Board.   
 
The  applicant  requests  his  UOTHC  discharge  be  upgraded.    He 
admits his wrongdoing; however, he believes that he has paid the 
price and believes it is time for his discharge to be upgraded.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement; extracts from his military record, and Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) and service medical record. 

within 

the 

regulation 

and 

discharge 

 
The  applicant‘s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
In  an  earlier  finding,  the  Board  determined  there  was 
insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  an  upgrade  of  the  applicant’s 
discharge.    We  reviewed  the  additional  evidence  in  judging  the 
merits of the case; however, based on the available evidence of 
record  and  that  provided  by  the  applicant,  it  appears  the 
discharge  was  consistent  with  the  substantive  requirements  of 
the 
commander's 
discretionary  authority.    Considering  his  overall  record  of 
service  and  the  lack  of  post  service  information  since  his 
discharge,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of  the 
characterization  of  his  discharge  is  warranted.    We  also  find 
insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation  that  the 
discharge  be  upgraded  on  the  basis  of  clemency.    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  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  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-2000-01878  in  Executive  Session  on  4  October  2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                   Panel Chair 
 

Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 20 Nov 00, 
            with Exhibits. 
Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 11,  
            with attachments. 

 
 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-00082-2

    Original file (BC-2002-00082-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00082-2 COUNSEL: TX VETERANS COMMISSION HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the reason for his separation (Triable by Court-Martial) and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be changed; and, his under other than...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2002-00082-2

    Original file (BC-2002-00082-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00082-2 COUNSEL: TX VETERANS COMMISSION HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the reason for his separation (Triable by Court-Martial) and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be changed; and, his under other than...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2002-04027-2

    Original file (BC-2002-04027-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 May 2008, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00061A

    Original file (BC-2009-00061A.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 July 2009, the applicant's request that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable was considered and denied by the Board. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. On 12 August 2009, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1996-03327A

    Original file (BC-1996-03327A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's request to have his discharge upgraded, and the rationale of the earlier decisions by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit C. The applicant submitted an undated DD Form 149 with attachments requesting reconsideration of his request to have his discharge upgraded (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | BC 2001 02811

    Original file (BC 2001 02811.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 March 2002, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit F. In an application dated 20 June 2014, the applicant seeks reconsideration of his earlier request. THE BOARD DETERMINES...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000-00961-2

    Original file (BC-2000-00961-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A summary of the evidence considered and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board is set forth in the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. On 10 January 2002, in response to a congressional inquiry, in behalf of the applicant, the AFBCMR denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration of her application (Refer to Exhibit G). To support this assertion, the applicant provided a personal statement, a statement from a Forensic Investigator who opines that the signature on the letter...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1983-01854A

    Original file (BC-1983-01854A.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Exhibit F. Letter, AFMPC/DPMARS2, dated 0 May 86. Exhibit J. Exhibit O.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02158 2

    Original file (BC 2012 02158 2.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 December 2012, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit E. In an application dated 11 February 2014, the applicant seeks reconsideration of his earlier request. Therefore, we do not find the additional...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC -1991-01786-2

    Original file (BC -1991-01786-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit F. On 1 July 2000, applicant submitted an application requesting reconsideration that his discharge be upgraded. A copy of the AFBCMR letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. On 26 May 2004, applicant submitted an application requesting reconsideration that his discharge be upgraded at least to a general. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR BC-1991-01786-2 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD...