RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00716
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was forced into accepting a lesser discharge for the ease of
the military.
He was not informed of the ramifications, limitations, and harm
his discharge would have on his future career and benefits.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
licenses as a registered nurse and physical therapy assistant.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 Apr 89, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and
was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman.
He received four (4) Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) all with
overall ratings of 5.
On 18 May 94, the applicant was notified by his commander that he
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for drug abuse.
The reason for the proposed action was between on or about 1 and
8 Mar 94, the applicant used marijuana, for which he received an
Article 15. Punishment imposed was a reduction to the grade of
airman first class.
Other punishment imposed was on 17 May 94, he received an Article
15, for making a false official statement that the first time he
ever used marijuana was when he was 14 years of age, and that
since then he had never tried it again until his recent incident
which statement was false in that he had used marijuana on
several occasions prior to entering the Air Force. Punishment
imposed was a reduction in grade to airman.
On 23 May 94, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification of discharge and, after consulting with counsel,
submitted statements in his own behalf.
On 31 May 94, the staff judge advocate reviewed the case and
found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended
that he receive a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, by reason of misconduct, and
received a general discharge. He served on active duty for a
period of 5 years, 1 month and 22 days.
Pursuant to the request of the Board on 1 Apr 11, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on
4 Apr 11, that, on the basis of the data furnished, they were
unable to locate an arrest record.
On 2 Jun 11, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities
since leaving the service (Exhibit C). As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We considered
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not
find sufficient evidence to compel us to recommend granting the
relief sought on that basis. 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 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-2010-00716 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 2 Jun 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01587
4) He received seven (7) Records of Individual Counseling, three for failure to go, three for failure to conform to AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel standards, and one for failure to attend required training. On 11 Apr 94, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, by reason of misconduct, and received a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02362
On 27 Mar 86, the applicant submitted a letter to his commander requesting he be considered for an honorable discharge. On 10 Apr 86, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade AB. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03301
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03301 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Oct 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03121
On 19 Jun 84, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. c. On 19 Apr 84, he received an Article 15 for striking another airman on 7 Apr 84 and failure to go on 11 Apr 84. d. On 14 Jun 84, he received an Article 15 for wrongfully possessing marijuana. The command and base legal office reviewed the case and recommended accepting the unconditional waiver and discharge with an UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01583
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was addicted to marijuana for many years of his life. 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 F. Applicant’s Letter, dated 26 Jun 08, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00785
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00785 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Apr 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00692
The applicant elected to have his case considered by an Administrative Discharge Board. The fact that the discharge board came to a different conclusion does not make the commander’s determination wrong. The crux of the applicant’s argument appears to be that since the Administrative Discharge Board reached a different conclusion regarding his alleged marijuana use than his commander, his commander’s refusal to set aside the Article 15 constitutes an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04643
On 29 Nov 1982 he reported late for duty. On 25 Apr 1983 he failed to report for duty at the appointed time and place. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2005-01773
On 19 Sep 96, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to honorable. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The following...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01355
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01355 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...