RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00498
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions).
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
It has been over 30 years since her discharge. She has pursued
and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration, Master of Business Administration and Executive
Master in Business Administration.
In support of her request, the applicant provides a DD Form 293,
Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of
the United States, and copies of her degree certificates.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 Jun 80, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first
class.
On 6 Apr 83, the applicants commander brought court-martial
charges against her for writing worthless checks at Lackland and
Fort Sam Houston Exchanges over a period from about 28 Jan 83 to
9 Feb 83, totaling $879.58, in violation of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 123a. Prior to the alleged
offense, she received an Article 15 with a suspended reduction
to the grade of airman for larceny. On 21 Oct 81, she was tried
by a special court-martial for larceny of $450.00. She was
sentenced to a 60-day restriction, forfeiture of $75.00 per
month for six months and a reduction in grade to airman basic.
After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a
voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial. She acknowledged that she understood if her request
was approved, she could be discharged with an UOTHC discharge.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicants
request for discharge be approved and that she receive an UOTHC
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
On 25 Apr 83, the discharge authority approved the applicants
request for discharge and on 6 May 83, she was discharged under
the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of
Airmen, Chapter 4, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by
Court-Martial, and received an UOTHC discharge. She served on
active duty for 2 years, 10 months, and 19 days.
On 9 Aug 85, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that her discharge be upgraded
to honorable. After reviewing the evidence of record, the AFDRB
concluded that no upgrade in discharge was warranted.
On 26 Aug 13, a request for information pertaining to her post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response
within 30 days (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. In the interest of
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of
clemency; however, we do not find the evidence provided
sufficient 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-2013-00498 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Aug 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03317
On 12 Jan 83, applicant’s squadron commander recommended his request for discharge be approved and recommended a general discharge. On 8 May 83, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 22 Oct 85, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02729
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02729 INDEX CODE 111.02 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Airman Performance Report (APR) closing 30 Mar 83 be voided from his records and replaced with the “original one that had straight 9s,” his 1983 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for the...
He received an LOR on 7 Apr 82 for failing to report for duty on 3 April 82. On 17 May 83, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general.
Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends her discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. FBI Report, dated 14 Aug 98. DOUGLAS J. HEADY Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 100, 110 AFBCMR 98-01562 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02752
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 December 1982, for a period of four years in the grade of airman first class. On 19 Dec 86, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade of her discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02914
On 23 May 06, she submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her BCD be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The DRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03507
On 7 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable. They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence that the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper or...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01323 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be upgraded. In support of his request applicant has provided a letter from AFPC/DPPRRB, dated 24 Mar 00, announcing the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) decision to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02884
Additionally, his commanders recommended a UOTHC discharge. The applicant, while serving in the grade of sergeant, was discharged from the Air Force on 23 April 1992 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial) with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 25 January 1996.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01479
On 4 Jun 91, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application, concluding that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization...