Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00930
Original file (BC-2010-00930.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00930 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

It has been more than 15 years since his discharge and he desires 
his character of service upgraded. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of the Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 May 1992. 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-51. The specific reason was 
that on or about 14 August 1993 while on leave in Indiana, the 
applicant smoked marijuana. For this offense, he received a 
Letter of Reprimand (LOR). 

 

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged 
receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel, the 
applicant elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate 
found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The 
discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and 
directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge. The applicant was discharged on 1 October 1993. He 
served 1 year, 4 months and 26 days on active duty. 

 

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an 
arrest record which is at Exhibit C. 

 

On 17 May 2010, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation and a 
request for information pertaining to his post-service activities 
was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received 
no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2010-00930 in Executive Session on 13 October 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-00930 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 February 2010, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 May 2010. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02170

    Original file (BC-2010-02170.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02170 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The officer who detained him that night made very positive comments to the judge and prosecutor on his behalf. In regards to the applicant’s request to correct his date of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00943

    Original file (BC-2010-00943.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00943 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01300

    Original file (BC-2010-01300.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01300 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00462

    Original file (BC-2010-00462.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00462 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 21 Jun 76, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Section F. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02629

    Original file (BC 2010 02629.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2010-00704

    Original file (BC-2010-00704.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 September 1959, his commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-16, Section B, with a general 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 the discharge processing. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01696

    Original file (BC-2010-01696.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01696 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit C. On 25...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01834

    Original file (BC-2010-01834.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04569

    Original file (BC-2010-04569.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 July 1989, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 2 March 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments in response to the FBI Report and about his post service activities (Exhibit D). Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01308

    Original file (BC-2008-01308.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 January 1993, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. The commander advised the applicant of his rights, and, on 19 January 1993, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a statement appealing that his discharge be characterized as honorable rather than general. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us...