RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02133 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The record is not in error but unjust due to his service as a 
Law Enforcement specialist. He served honorably for a year and 
a month. He received an Article 15 for falling asleep on his 
post although he was sick with fever at the time of the 
incident. He was then given the option to continue serving or 
be discharged. He chose the latter due to his father’s failing 
health. 

 

He never thought to amend his record. He never viewed his 
discharge as dishonorable until he was denied certain VA 
benefits. Since his discharge, he has completed his college 
education and worked his way up the corporate ladder. He is now 
the manager of eight sales representatives for a Fortune 500 
company. He would like his discharge upgraded so that he can 
qualify for a VA home loan to purchase a home for his family. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty and a list of the items needed for a VA home loan. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 July 1988. 
On 29 August 1989, his commander notified him of his intent to 
recommend him for discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. 
Specifically, the applicant received one Article 15, four 
Letters of Reprimand and six Letters of Counseling. On 


30 August 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his 
commander’s intent. He also acknowledged his right to consult 
counsel and submit matters on his behalf: he declined both. 
The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient on 30 August 1989. 

 

The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged 
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. His 
narrative reason for separation was listed as misconduct – 
pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and his reentry code 
is listed as 2B (approved involuntary separation with less than 
honorable discharge.) He was credited with 1 year, 1 month and 
6 days of active duty service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board's request for information, the FBI 
indicated that, on the basis of the evidence provided, they were 
unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant. 

 

The applicant appeals to the Board for clemency. Since leaving 
the service, he has listened to the needs of others and offered 
a helping hand. He believes this is what has made him 
successful in his career and it brings him a sense of purpose 
and satisfaction. He enjoys helping others and providing 
direction and encouragement. He is most proud of his role as a 
good husband and father. It has taken him 20 years to appeal 
for a second chance at being an honorable veteran; and, he 
requests favorable consideration. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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, or unduly harsh. We 
considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, 


we are not inclined to extend clemency at this time. Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 
upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 2011-02133 in Executive Session on 4 January 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Applicant’s response, dated 3 Nov 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair