RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00674
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was given an Article 15 for being less than five minutes late
for a dry fire class. The instructor would not allow him to
enter the classroom and refused to listen to him. He felt
punishment should have been a slap on the hand, not an
Article 15.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
17 August 1971.
On 16 January 1974, the applicant was notified by his commander
of his intent to recommend his discharge for frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities
under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability,
Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for
Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the
Rehabilitation Program, Paragraph 2-15a, Frequent Involvement of
a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities,
Section B, Chapter 2. The reasons for the action were that he
failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of
duty on or about 20 September 1973; failed to go at the time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about
27 September 1973; wrongfully possessed an identification card
with an altered birth date on or about 1 October 1973; and
without authority, absented himself from his organization from
on or about 1 October 1973 to 3 October 1973. His punishment
consisted of an Article 15, dated 5 October 1973, with reduction
to the grade of Airman First Class. On 16 November 1973, the
applicant received an Article 15, for failure to go at the time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty without authority on
or about 5 November 1973 and on or about 7 November 1973. His
punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of Airman. On 30
Jan 1973, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for being
involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in damages to a
government vehicle which he was operating on or about 18 January
1973. On 20 September 1973, the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand for failure to go to the firing range for a scheduled
firing on or about 17 September 1973 without authority and
failed to attend the Standard Traffic Safety course at the
appointed time on 18 September 1973.
On 17 January 1974, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
action and of his right to consult with legal counsel. The
applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative
discharge board and elected to not submit statements on his own
behalf.
On 22 January 1974, the discharge was found to be legally
sufficient.
On 25 January 1974, the discharge authority approved the
commanders recommendation and directed the applicant be
furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
On 31 January 1974, the applicant was furnished a general
discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days
of active service, excluding lost time from 1 Oct 1973 3 Oct
1973.
On 28 April 2014, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment with 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
Exhibit C).
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 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the
applicants post-service activities, there is no way for us to
determine if the applicants accomplishments since leaving the
service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct
for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
4. The applicants case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
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-2014-00674 in Executive Session on 2 December 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 14.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR dated 28 Apr 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03960
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03960 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 8 January 1973, according to AF Form 1137, Unfavorable Information File Summary, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), for failure to go, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03585
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 July 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 17 for a period of 6 years. On 24 April 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to work. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05855
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $100.00 of pay per month for two months and a reduction to the grade of airman, suspended until 5 March 1973, at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action. On 28 February 1974, the applicant was furnished with a BCD, and was credited with 2 years, 3 months, and 3 days of active service, excluding lost time from 5 April 1973 to 9...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00613
On 11 March 2008, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service activities, within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1985-03929
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1985-03929 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed. Applicant was discharged on 4 Aug 82, in the grade of airman, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of “Misconduct – Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02763
On 23 September 1975 and 17 February 1982, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change of his discharge and denied his request. On 27 January 1976, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Air Force Correction of Military Records Board. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01361
A legal review was conducted on 13 October 1972, in which the staff judge advocate recommended applicant be allowed to withdraw his request for an administrative discharge board, be discharged for unfitness and furnished an undesirable discharge, and that no further rehabilitative procedures be attempted. On 8 February 1979, applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), requesting that his records be reviewed and his discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit B.
t Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01994 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable or general, under honorable conditions. 2 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that record of the final discharge action taken by the discharge authority is not on file in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017963
There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this paragraph. The evidence of record confirms the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the NJP he received for failing to go to his place of duty on...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01244
The discharge authority approved his separation and ordered a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). DPPPWB states the application was not filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2303, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, (AFBCMR) paragraph 3.5, 1 March 1996. He gives no reason for his delay in petitioning the Board.