AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00868
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The AF Form 2098, Duty Status Change, dated 24 Jul 90, be
declared void and removed from his records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The AF Form 2098 in question has incorrect information. He
never possessed, was charged with, or was convicted of
possessing the illegal drugs that he was initially arrested for.
The illegal drugs belonged to an American living in another
apartment who was an “illegal citizen” in Japan. The Judge
Advocate General (JAG) noted in his report on this case that the
“illegal citizen” testified in open court that the illegal drugs
were his alone, and the applicant had no involvement with them
whatsoever. The applicant paid the price for this injustice by
the Japanese authorities.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, and two AF Form 2098s.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 23 Nov 79.
On 15 Jun 89, while stationed in Japan, the applicant was unable
to report for duty because he was in civil confinement in a
Japanese jail awaiting trial, having been arrested for illegal
drug use.
On 26 Feb 90, the applicant was sentenced to six years of hard
labor by a Japanese civilian court.
On 25 Feb 96, the applicant was furnished a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct in accordance
with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, and
credited with ten years, three months, and two days of total
active service, six years of which was lost time.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report
indicating they were unable to locate an arrest record on the
basis of the information provided.
On 24 Aug 12, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. In response, the applicant submitted an expanded
statement, two letters of recommendation, and his DD Form 214.
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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 do not find the applicant’s arguments or
the documentation presented sufficient to conclude that he has
been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant
contends that his AF Form 2098 should be removed from his
records because he was never charged with possession of illegal
drugs, he has presented no evidence whatsoever which would lead
us to believe that his records are somehow erroneous, he was
deprived of rights to which he was entitled, or that there was
an abuse of discretionary authority. Notwithstanding the above,
even though the applicant did not initially request an upgrade
to his discharge, he was offered the opportunity to submit
information pertaining to his post-service activities for the
purpose of the Board considering a discharge upgrade based on
clemency. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we considered
upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency: however, we do
not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to
recommend granting an upgrade to the applicants’ discharge on
the basis of clemency at this time. In view of the foregoing,
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that
no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
2
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
________________________________________________________________
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-2012-00868 in Executive Session on 28 Sep 12, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Panel Chair
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Aug 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Sep 12, w/atchs.
Chair
Member
Member
3
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04691
The administrative discharge board met on 5 Nov 82 and recommended the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge without probation or rehabilitation. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant the relief sought in...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01159
On 20 Sep 74, the applicant was furnished a UOTCH discharge and credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 14 days of total active service, which included 79 days of lost time for the period 1 Jul 74 through 20 Sep 74. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01438
The board convened on 18 Mar 55 and recommended the applicant be discharged with an undesirable characterization for unfitness, and the discharge authority approved the discharge. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 8 Jun 06, the applicant indicates he began drinking when his squadron was transferred to Japan because they had too...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00047
On 31 July 1995, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01206
On 3 Jul 90, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for drug abuse. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicants UOTHC discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commanders discretionary authority. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2010-01206 in Executive...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03326
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03326 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 17 May 90, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04743
He served in the Air Force to the best of his ability and had a good service record. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 7 Mar 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01606
On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service characterized as general. On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, the Board recommends his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a majority of the Board recommends his RE...
On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service characterized as general. On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, the Board recommends his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a majority of the Board recommends his RE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.