RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02061
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He developed an alcohol problem that was not present until he
was stationed in Korea. When he tried to get help, he was sent
to the Philippines for rehabilitation. The drinking culture
there only set him up for failure. He shouldnt be punished any
further for an illness that he attempted to get help for. He
would appreciate any consideration by the Board.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
16 Jul 86.
On 19 Oct 87, the applicant was notified by his commander of his
intent to recommend his discharge for failure to successfully
complete the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program under the provisions
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, para 5-32.
The following facts led up to his discharge:
a. On 2 Mar 87, the applicant received an Article 15 for
sleeping at his post. For this, he was reduced to the grade of
airman basic (E-1) and ordered to correctional custody for seven
days. The reduction in grade was suspended until 2 Sep 87.
b. On 11 Jun 87, the applicant self-identified for the
Alcohol Rehabilitation Program (ARP).
c. On 17 Jun 87, the applicant was formally entered into
the ARP.
d. On 22 Aug 87, the applicant began inpatient treatment.
e. On 1 Sep 87, the applicant refused to participate in the
program and was subsequently returned to his duty station, on
3 Sep 87.
On 20 Oct 87, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to
submit statements on his own behalf.
On 27 Oct 87, the case was found legally sufficient and, on
4 Nov 87, the discharge authority directed the applicant be
discharged.
On 13 Nov 87, the applicant was furnished a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year,
3 months, and 28 days of active service.
On 4 Aug 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 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.
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-2014-02061 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 15, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-02061 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Aug 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03832
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03832 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His initial eligibility and start date for Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) be 11 Feb 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The delayed release of the Air National Guard (ANG) Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 ARP policy guidance resulted in his not being allowed to renew his two-year ARP agreement. A complete copy of the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02106
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02106 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03683
For this misconduct, he received Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture of $167.00 pay and seven days correctional custody. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge authority. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Oct 14, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00461
If the ARP had been issued on time in Oct, he would have had a full year of orders. Furthermore, because the decision whether or not to offer ACP in any given year is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary, any delay in approval of the program for a given year cannot become the basis for a retroactive recovery. On 12 Sep 14, SAF/MRBR forwarded the applicant copies of the noted SecAF decisions for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01030
Backdating an ACP agreement essentially offers an incentive to an officer for a decision he has already made and provides a retention bonus for a period of service already served. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Therefore,...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05602
The intent of Congress (and therefore the purpose of the statute) was to provide an incentive that would encourage aviation service officers not to leave active duty. Upon review of his application, A1PF concluded that he should be permitted to adjust the effective date of his current FY13 ARP agreement from 27 Aug 13 to 2 Feb 13. However, in view of the fact the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) has determined that any delay in the approval of the ARP program for a given year cannot...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00106
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicants post-service activities warrant such consideration. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03866
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03866 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 22 Sep 86, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to report at the prescribed time to a military doctor and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03608
Furthermore, because the decision whether or not to offer ACP in any given year is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary, any delay in approval of the program for a given year cannot become the basis for a retroactive recovery. The complete SecAF decision is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends denial. Upon further review of the documents provided, A1PF concludes he should be permitted to request,...