RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02035
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was never offered rehabilitation and was unjustly discharged
based on one isolated event in 20 months of service with no
other adverse actions. He has almost ten years of loyal service
with the Department of Homeland Security.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
22 Jan 82.
On 19 Jul 83, the applicant was notified by his commander of his
intent to recommend a general discharge for a pattern of
misconduct under the provisions of AFR 39-10, para 5-47a. The
basis for the action was as follows:
a. On 24 Jun 83, the applicant wrongfully used and possessed
marijuana. For this offense he was reduced to the grade of
Airman Basic (E-1), forfeited $250.00 pay per month for two
months and confined for 30 days.
b. On 29 Apr 83, the applicant reported late for duty, for
which he received a letter of counseling (LOC).
c. On 18 Mar 83, the applicant failed to maintain sufficient
funds in his bank account, for which he received a letter of
reprimand (LOR).
d. On 8 Mar 83, the applicant reported late for duty, for
which he received a LOR.
e. On 16 Mar 83, the applicant was substandard in his duty
performance, for which he received a LOC.
f. On 9 Dec 82, the applicant reported late for duty, for
which he received a LOC.
g. On 22 Oct 82, the applicant failed to meet his scheduled
appointment, for which he received a LOC.
h. On 21 Sep 82, the applicant wrongfully made an illegal
turn, for which he received a ticket and a LOC.
On 1 Aug 83, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the
discharge authority subsequently approved the commanders
recommendation.
On 5 Aug 83, the applicant was furnished a general discharge,
and was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days of active
service.
On 3 Aug 85, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to
honorable. On 7 Oct 86, the AFDRB denied his request,
concluding that discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was
within the discretion of the discharge authority and that he was
provided full administrative due process.
On 25 Aug 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 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.
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-2014-02035 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 May 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...
Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03914
d. On 23 Jun 87, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 6 different occasions. On 3 Dec 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for separation, indicating the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations and was within the sound...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02409
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02409 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in her discharge processing. We see no evidence of an error in this case and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00632
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81, for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 29 Nov 83, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00865
The applicant was discharged on 12 Oct 84. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 10, w/atch.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0438
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0438 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. LOR, 27 MAY 99 - Late for duty. LOR, 21 Jul 99 13, AF Form 3070, 13 Aug 99 14, LOC, 8 Nov 99 15.
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...