Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02101
Original file (BC 2014 02101.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-02101

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was influenced by older non-commissioned officers to drink and smoke marijuana.  He regrets every single day the choices he made.  The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) entrapped, threatened, and started him on a path that ruined his career.  Subsequently, a discharge was initiated against him based on false information provided by the AFOSI, which led him to go absent without leave (AWOL).  He realizes that his actions were his fault and he would like the only wrong that he has done in 52 years to be made right.  He recently had a stroke and is concerned about his mortality.  Therefore, he would like to fulfill his last wish to be an honorably discharged veteran and have “honorable discharge” on his headstone.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 31 August 1981.  

The applicant’s AF Form 909, Airman Performance Report (APR) (AB thru SrA), rendered for the period 31 August 1982 through 11 November 1982, indicated his off duty bearing and behavior did not meet Air Force standards because of his involvement with illegal drugs.  

On 24 January 1984, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  His punishment consisted of 30 days correctional custody.  

On 8 February 1984, the applicant’s unserved portion of his punishment was remitted.  

On 15 January 1986, the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman first class (E-3) and forfeitures of $200.00 pay per month for two months (suspended until 1 July 1986).  

On 13 February 1986, the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) for absenting himself from his place of duty without proper authority, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He was sentenced to confinement for 30 days, reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1), and forfeitures of $400.00 pay per month for one month.  He was credited with 16 days for which he was in pretrial confinement.  

On 3 March 1986, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for commission of a serious offense – Drug Abuse.  

On 3 March 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, waived his right to consult with legal counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 4 March 1986, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct and the case was found to be legally sufficient.

On 6 March 1986, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  

On 10 March 1986, the applicant was furnished a general discharge for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and was credited with 4 years, 10 months, and 6 days of total active service.  

On 26 May 2014, 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 process.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s general discharge for Misconduct – Drug Abuse, was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  He has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of his service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general discharge.


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-2014-02101 in Executive Session on 3 February 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 May 2014.

						



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9602123

    Original file (9602123.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 December 1987, the general court-martial approving authority approved only so much of the adjudged sentence which provided for a bad conduct discharge, 14 months of confinement, reduction to airman basic, and forfeiture of $438 per month for 14 months. On 23 February 1988, the Air Force Court of Military Review found the approved findings of guilty and the sentence to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, affirmed the 2 AFBCMR 96-02123 same. On 29...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01962

    Original file (BC 2014 01962.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01962 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 11 August 1986, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the sentence. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01296

    Original file (BC-2005-01296.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending the discharge, the applicant was counseled formally by the squadron staff and social actions personnel. On 10 May 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F). Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03360

    Original file (BC-2007-03360.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 September 1986, the applicant was released from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service for misconduct – drug abuse. On 8 February 2008, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02101

    Original file (BC-2005-02101.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02101 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION: 17 FEB 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed to allow him to reenter military service. A medical note from the Alcohol Rehabilitation Committee, dated 1 March 1988,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00706

    Original file (BC-2007-00706.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    They recommended applicant be discharged for drug abuse with a general discharge characterization. On 24 May 1993, applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), requesting that his records be reviewed and his discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03027

    Original file (BC-2005-03027.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03027 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: MICHAEL VITERNA HEARING DESIRED: “UNSURE” MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 APRIL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The evaluation officer stated the applicant should be furnished a general discharge and should not be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00407

    Original file (BC-2006-00407.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After considering all the matters presented, his commander determined that he committed the offenses alleged. She states that despite the fact the property was found in the residence of SSgt R---, the elements of the Article 121 offense of wrongful appropriation are met if the property appropriated was for “his own use or the use of any other person other than the owner.” The SJA cites the legal review for the applicant’s NJP appeal, which apparently states that, “He permitted a coworker to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02116

    Original file (BC-2012-02116.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant contends he is innocent of the charges preferred and asserts that, by deductive reasoning, he has identified who the confidential informant must have been, and that individual now recants any statement he may have made to the Air Force Office of Special Investigation regarding whether the applicant every smoked Spice in his presence. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have his referral EPR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02277

    Original file (BC 2014 02277.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02277 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. On 19 Oct 12, he received a letter from Headquarters Air Force Office of Special Investigations (HQ AFOSI) indicating they expunged the Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, court sentence charge indexed in the National Crime Information...