RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02535
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to general.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While on active duty, he was diagnosed with conditions that have
worsened since his release. He was treated with hypnosis rather
than medication. He now has chronic symptoms and needs
medication to treat this condition. His discharge must be
upgraded for him to receive benefits from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA).
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits DVA
correspondence and documentation from his master personnel
record.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 30 January 1980. On
7 November 1988, he was notified that his commander recommended
that he be discharged from the Air Force for conduct prejudicial
to good order and discipline. On 15 November 1988, he
acknowledged his right to request or waive an Administrative
Discharge Board, to be represented by counsel and to submit
statements on his behalf. The applicant requested a hearing
before an Administrative Discharge Board, requested counsel and
noted that he would submit statements on his behalf.
On 4 and 5 April 1989, the Discharge Board met and heard the
case. The Board found the applicant:
a. Did assault his wife, but did not threaten her life.
b. Did not put his son in a clothes dryer and turn it on.
c. Did not harass his family by threats of violence and
nonsupport, culminating in their return to England.
d. Did strike his wife with a closed fist.
e. Did argue with his girlfriend and strike her.
f. Did assault his girlfriend.
g. Did strike his girlfriend in the head and knock her to the
ground.
The Board also found that the applicant should be discharged and
recommended he be separated with an under other than honorable
conditions discharge. They also recommended that he not be
offered probation and rehabilitation.
On 18 July 1989, the staff judge advocate opined the evidence in
the case supported the Boards recommendation for discharge. On
20 July 1989, the commander approved the recommendations and
findings of the Board and directed the applicant be separated
with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
In response to a request for post-service information the
applicant states that he has been a volunteer for the City of
Philadelphia for the past 15 years. He volunteers for the
summer school lunch program and with the county Board of
Elections.
The applicants complete response is at 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice
that occurred during the discharge process. 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, or unduly harsh.
Additionally, we do not find it would be in the interest of
justice to upgrade the discharge on the basis of clemency.
Therefore, in view of the above and 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-02535 in Executive Session on 27 February 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 Jan 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicants Response, undated.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02752
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02752 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation (Misconduct Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) be changed. She served 2 years, 5 months and 7 days on active duty. On 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01886
The Medical Consultant also noted that the applicant completed a DD Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment, as part of his separation physical examination in Jun 00, reporting problems with low back pain, shin splints and bilateral elbow tendonitis. Under the Air Force system (Title 10, USC), Physical Evaluation Boards (PEBs) must determine if an individual’s medical condition renders them unfit for duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00627
Mental Health referred the applicant to a medical evaluation board (MEB). Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. We further find the applicants medical condition was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with the applicable instructions and policy and appropriately determined to have existed prior to her service (EPTS) and therefore not compensable.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02662
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02662 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 Jan 93, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct-minor disciplinary infractions. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01364
Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the request for discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post- service activities. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 March 2012
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00676
The military judge considered the facts and circumstances of the offense and the applicant’s overall military record. His sentence was appropriate. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2003-00676 in Executive Session on 22 Jul 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member The following documentary...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01026 INDEX CODE: A68.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge(BCD) be upgraded to general. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request,...
On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...