RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00264
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of discharge, he was offered an expedited general
discharge. After accepting this offer, he learned that the
phrase Pattern of Misconduct was added. He believes the stigma
of a general discharge may hamper his future career goals.
In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of
his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the
Armed Forces of the United States and a personal letter.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 September
1981 and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior
airman.
On 12 December 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander
that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of
Airmen, for a pattern of misconduct; conduct prejudicial to good
order and discipline. The specific reasons for this action were:
1) He received three Armed Forces Traffic Tickets for speeding
and operating a motorcycle while not wearing the proper
protective safety equipment 2) He received three Letters of
Reprimand for failure to report to M-60 training, failure to show
for guard mount on time, failure to maintain standby status, and
failure to turn in code material; 3) He received a Letter of
Counseling for failure to respond properly to an exercise and not
having the required equipment needed for the exercise; 3) He
received an Article 15 for dereliction in the performance of his
duties.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge, received advice from a military defense attorney and
waived his right to submit statements. The Staff Judge Advocate
found the case legally sufficient to support the separation and
recommended the applicants request for discharge be approved and
that he receive a general discharge. On 20 December 1985, the
discharge authority determined that a general discharge was
appropriate in light of the applicants overall military record.
On 20 December 1985, the applicant was discharged with a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge after completing a period
of 4 years, 3 months and 10 days total active service.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that based on
the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record.
In response to a request to provide information concerning his
post-service activities, the applicant states he was a bit
immature in his 20s and his attitude at times, was that of a
foolish young man. He has turned his life around since his
discharge from the Air Force and has attached several statements
and letters from both community and professional acquaintances.
The applicants 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 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. We have considered
the applicants overall quality of service, the events which
precipitated the discharge, and the available evidence related to
post-service activities, and we do we do not believe clemency is
warranted. 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 Docket Number
BC-2010-00264 in Executive Session on 7 July 2010, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Applicants Response, undated, w/atchs.
Panel ChairAF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC 2008 00264
________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The administrative discharge file is missing from the applicant's military personnel records; therefore, the facts surrounding his misconduct leading to his discharge cannot be verified. His response is at Exhibit G. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit D. On 3 March 2009, a copy of the FBI...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00264
DPPD provides a review of the applicant’s medical records and notes while the applicant's condition was service- connected by the DVA, CRSC criteria require documentation to support a qualifying combat-related event or events as the direct cause of disability. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Mar 07 for...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02629
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02629 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 23 November 1985, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Exhibit D....
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03859
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03859 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 13 May 1987, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FAs, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicants request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01042
On 30 Sep 10, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation concerning his activities since leaving military service (Exhibit D). 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 C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Sep 10, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01606
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01606 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Air Force never provided him with the appropriate diagnosis, education or treatment. On 1 October 1985, the discharge authority determined that a general discharge was...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. On 22 April 2009, a copy of the FBI report and a request for post-service information were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (see Exhibit D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03411
On 14 May 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for a general discharge for misconduct. On 20 December 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Jan 08, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01834
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01834 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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...