RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00394
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He would very much like the Board to review his file and upgrade
his discharge. At the time of his discharge he was told he
could request to have his discharge upgraded but he never did.
His current employer asked for a copy of his discharge. He
would like to see if he could get it upgraded before providing
it.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 16 Mar 83.
On 6 Apr 84, the applicant was notified that his commander was
recommending him for administrative discharge for drug abuse
with an UOTHC discharge. The bases for the action were the
applicant was apprehended for possession and use of marijuana,
for which he received non-judicial punishment under Article 15
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); he was non-
recommended for promotion to the grade of airman; he failed to
obey the speed limit on the Air Force Base; he was arrested for
driving under the influence (DUI) for which he received a Letter
of Reprimand (LOR); he failed to comply with the Air Force Base
regulations by allowing an individual to operate his vehicle
while under revocation, for which he received an LOR; he was
identified as having used marijuana by a positive urinalysis,
for which he received an Article 15, and he failed to obey a
direct order of the Deputy Commander by operating his vehicle
within the confines of his Air Force Base while under
revocation, for which he received an Article 15.
On 9 Apr 84, after consulting counsel, the applicant submitted a
letter conditionally waiving all rights to a hearing before a
board of officers, if the discharge authority approved a general
discharge. This waiver was rejected. On 3 May 84, after a
subsequent meeting with counsel, the applicant submitted a
letter stating he did not waive his right to a hearing before an
Administrative Discharge Board (ADB).
On 21 Jun 84, the applicant was represented by counsel and
appeared before the ADB. After considering all the evidence in
the case, the ADB found the applicant had committed a serious
offense, i.e., drug abuse and recommended his discharge with a
UOTHC, and that rehabilitation opportunities not be offered.
After a legal review found the case to be legally sufficient,
the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge and
directed the applicant be issued an UOTHC discharge for drug
abuse, without probation and rehabilitation under the provisions
of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Separation of
Airmen, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-49c, Misconduct Drug
Abuse Board Hearing.
On 3 Oct 84, the applicant was discharged with an UOTHC, with a
narrative reason for separation of Misconduct Drug Abuse
Board Hearing. He served 1 year, 6 months, and 18 days on
active duty.
On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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 an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his
rebuttal response, 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 based on clemency; however,
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend
granting relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
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-2014-00394 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 14.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Information Bulletin, not dated.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00394
The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right. Applicant contends during his military career, he made some bad decisions, he was young and dumb and didn't have a family yet, and hc now has a family and purpose, currently works for Social Security, and has a career and wants to continue to grow. LOR, 14 NOV 95 - Financial irresponsibility.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00457
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00457 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00394
Additionally, member had an Article 15 for making a false official statement to a military police officer, and a vacation of his suspended reduction for two incidents of failure to go. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement agreeing with the discharge action but criticizing the treatment program and requesting his service be characterized as honorable. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: a. Enld as AB 16 Nov 94 for 4 yrs.
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01620
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01620 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 May 92, he received an LOC for failing to pay his rent on time. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2000-01878-2
The applicant requests his UOTHC discharge be upgraded. within the regulation and discharge The applicant‘s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. Considering his overall record of service and the lack of post service information since his discharge, we are...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04303
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04303 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 21 Mar 85, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge board (ADB) action for minor disciplinary infractions,...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02518
The investigation officer was later promoted and made the Academy’s IG. DPSOO states there is no evidence that the LOR was seen by the selection board. His career advisor suggested that if he requested retirement his outstanding performance report would be on top when the promotion board reviewed his records; however, he received a Letter of Reprimand which was included in records.