RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01611
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was based on bad credit and debts incurred by his spouse. He
was a dedicated airman and feels his discharge should be upgraded.
In support of this application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the
United States.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 Apr 84, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
On 11 Apr 86, his commander notified him that he was recommending his
separation from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation
39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct-Pattern
Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities. The reasons
for his actions were as follows:
1. On 22 and 25 Jun 84, the applicant wrote two worthless checks to
the Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) Club. For this offense, he was verbally
counseled.
2. On 26 Jul 84, the applicant assaulted his wife. For this
offense, he received an Article 15.
3. On 2 and 4 Jan 86, he wrote four worthless checks to the NCO
Club. For this offense, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).
4. Between 13 Feb and 2 Mar 86, the applicant wrote worthless checks
to on-base establishments. For these offenses, he received an Article 15.
A review of the discharge case file by the Staff Judge Advocate was found
legally sufficient. On 5 May 86, the discharge authority approved the
applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge without
probation and rehabilitation. He was discharged on 8 May 86, and served 4
years, 11 months and 5 days on active duty.
In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they were unable to
identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the basis of
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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After careful consideration of the
available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect
his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing
regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken against the
applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct. Having
found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while
the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to
grant favorable action on his request.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2010-01611 in
Executive Session on 17 Mar 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 11, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00218
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00218 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUL 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). The evidence of record indicates the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00692
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00692 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Board recommended the applicant be separated with a general discharge, and not be offered probation and rehabilitation. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 11.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01297
However, they did find based upon the record, applicant’s testimony, evidence provided by the applicant, that his reason for discharge was inequitable and directed his reason for separation be changed to “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” They further concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02819
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02819 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Feb 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02925
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02925 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). He served a total of two years, seven months, and nine days of active duty service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02807
Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 7 Jun 85. He petitioned the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to upgrade his discharge to honorable in 1993. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00462
The XXX TAW commander testified that he was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant might have had, that the applicant had family and financial problems, and that while the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem, it was possible he did have an alcohol problem. He testified the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem. Diagnosis was probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer the applicant again to Social Actions and, if retained, to...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-01236
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1980 he was rated by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) with the same rank and time in service (TIS). DPPP states a review of the applicant’s record reveals he was considered and nonselected for promotion to technical sergeant five times (cycles 82A6- 86A6) with the first contested report (8 July 1980) used in the promotion process. The complete DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00852
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his DD Form 214. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Mar 05, for...