RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00130 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

It was explained to him that his discharge would upgrade to 
honorable after six months. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with his 30 Jun 89 separation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 Sep 86 for 
a period of four years. 

 

The squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative 
discharge action for unsatisfactory performance. The underlying 
basis for this action was a series of disciplinary infractions 
committed by the applicant. Specifically, for the acts of 
misconduct, he received two Memos for Record (MFRs) for 
unsatisfactory ratings on two quality verification inspections; 
a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure in assigned duties; a 
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for servicing an aircraft with liquid 
oxygen while another airman was performing maintenance on the 
same aircraft; Decertification on aircraft inspection, and an 
Article 15 for dereliction of duty and for signing an official 
document, which he knew was false. 

 

On 8 Jun 89, the applicant waived his right to counsel and to 
submit statements in his own behalf. The staff judge advocate 
found the case file legally sufficient and recommended the 
applicant receive a general discharge, without probation and 


rehabilitation (P&R). On 21 Jun 89, the discharge authority 
approved the general discharge, without P&R. 

 

The applicant was discharged, on 30 Jun 89, under the provisions 
of AFM 39-10, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with 
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). 
He was credited with two years, nine months, and three days of 
active duty service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated based on 
data furnished; they are unable to locate an arrest record. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 during the discharge process. 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. We also find 
insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the 
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Should the 
applicant provide statements from community leaders and 
acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and 
other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this 
Board may be inclined to reconsider his application based on the 
new evidence. We cannot, however, recommend approval based on 
the current evidence of record. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2011-00130 in Executive Session on 1 September 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair