AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01190
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge he met the criteria for a waiver of
discharge and had the support of his commanding officers.
In support of the request, the applicant provides copies of
documents related to his request
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 Sep 94, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the
Regular Air Force. He served as a Security Apprentice.
On 23 May 96, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for drug abuse.
The specific reason for the discharge action was that on 19 Mar
96, he received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana. For
this misconduct he was reduced in rank to the grade of airman and
received 30 days restriction to the base.
His commander advised him of his rights in this matter. On
3 Jun 96, he acknowledged receipt of the notification letter and,
after consulting with legal counsel, submitted a statement in his
own behalf.
On 27 Mar 96, a request for a waiver of discharge was submitted
by the applicant’s first sergeant with his commander’s
endorsement. The waiver states the applicant meets all seven
retention criteria.
The legal office conducted a legal review and the staff judge
advocate (SJA) found the case legally sufficient to support
separation and recommended a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The SJA further
noted it appears the applicant has met 1 through 5 and 7 of the
retention criteria, but has not met the criteria for number 6.
The applicant has support from members in his squadron for
retention; however, those who support the applicant do not
address the broader question of drug abuse on a base with a
nuclear mission. Consideration should be given to the broader
picture--the mission of the base, and the impact that drug abuse
among members in sensitive positions would have on the mission--
retention does not seem to be in the best interest of the Air
Force. The applicant has not submitted evidence that justifies
his retention.
On 24 Jun 96, the discharge authority directed the applicant be
furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and he
was discharged on 26 Jun 96 and credited with 1 year, 9 months,
and 12 days of active service.
A copy of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report,
provided pursuant to the Board’s request, contained no entries
subsequent to the applicant’s discharge (Exhibit C).
On 27 Jun 12, the Board staff requested the applicant provide
documentation concerning his activities since leaving military
service (Exhibit D). In response, the applicant provides a
chronology of his employment history and two character
references. His complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his
rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board
majority finds 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 discharge authority’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
2
the offenses committed. We considered upgrading the discharge
based on clemency; however, the Board majority does not find the
evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend
granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no
basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-01190 in Executive Session on 10 Oct 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.
voted to grant the relief requested but does not desire to submit
a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jul 12, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, 23 Aug 12, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
Member
Member
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01747
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS did his job AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01747 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 Mar 96, the 39 WG/CC reviewed the case file and recommended the 16th Air Force commander (16 AF/CC) approve the applicant’s unconditional waiver...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-01750
In 1983, he was discharged as an Air Force Fire Fighter. On 7 Jul 83, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman. We have considered the applicant’s overall record of service, and the events which precipitated the discharge, and his post service information; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02240
On 23 Jun 58, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and the characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Therefore, the Board Majority recommends the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) as a matter of equity and on the basis of clemency.
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0249
Also, the applicant believes his discharge was improper because of the lack of education on using prescription drugs, The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropnety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. In this case, the respondent submitted a statement attempting to show that he meets all of the seven retention criteria, in addition to numerous character letters. Therefore, discharge is appropriate.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03740
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03740 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 27 Jun 86, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a UOTHC discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Feb 12.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00479
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit F. HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant's request for a change of RE code. If the Board upgrades the applicant’s character of service to honorable his RE code would automatically change to 2C, which denotes "Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge." DPSOA will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2B, unless otherwise directed by the Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00131
On 12 Jan 78, the applicant amended his original conditional waiver and waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less than a general discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 06. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Feb 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01190
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01190 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and her narrative reason for separation be changed to misconduct-general. But, it is our opinion that a general (under other than honorable conditions)...