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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He became eligible for a discharge upgrade six months after the
effective date of his discharge on 13 May 1987.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of a DD
Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed
Forces of the United States.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 19 February 1985 and was promoted to the
grade of airman (E-2) effective 19 August 1985.
The applicant received one Article 15, one Letter of Reprimand
(LOR), and eight Letters of Counseling (LOC) between 18 December
1985 and 6 June 1986. He was demoted to the grade of airman
basic (E-1) effective 6 June 1986 as a result of his Article 15
punishment.
On 2 July 1986, the applicant was notified that his commander was
recommending him for a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge for a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order
and discipline. However, the commander also recommended the
applicant be considered for probation and rehabilitation (P&R) as
in the best interest of the Air Force. The applicant
acknowledged receipt of the discharge recommendation, consulted
counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.
On 9 July 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate concurred with the
recommendation for a general discharge, but that its execution be
conditionally suspended for P&R. On 10 July 1986, the discharge
authority approved the recommendation for discharge, but
suspended the discharge according to Air Force Regulation 39-10,
Chapter 7, for 12 months from the date of the applicants
voluntary acceptance of the terms of the P&R. On 18 July 1986,
the applicant acknowledged receipt and accepted the terms of the
P&R.
On 5 May 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander of his
intent to recommend that his discharge be executed and that his
P&R be terminated based on the applicant reporting late to work
on 22 April 1987. The applicant acknowledged receipt and waived
his right to submit matters in his own behalf. Following a
review by the Staff Judge Advocate, the discharge authority
approved the recommended discharge without further P&R.
On 13 May 1987, the applicant was discharged from active duty
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served
2 years, 2 months, and 25 days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the FBI indicated that on the
basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest
record pertaining to the applicant.
On 9 December 2010, the applicant was given an opportunity to
submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C).
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. Furthermore, we do
not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant
has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service
activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis 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 BC-2010-03859 in Executive Session on 19 July 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-03859 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 10, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Dec 10, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00725
DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and within the discretion of the discharge authority. Although the applicant has provided some information concerning post-service activities, we find this information insufficient to warrant approval of the requested relief based on the limited quality and quantity, especially in view of the fact...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01698
On 25 September 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of sergeant (E-4) for a period of 4 years. On 4 June 1987, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he was considering the imposition of nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of marijuana on or about 13 April 1987. On 23 September 1987, after consulting legal counsel, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01300
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02218
Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time. On 13 October 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation regarding his activities since military service (Exhibit F). As of this date, no documentation was provided.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00839
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00839 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-01955
He assumed his discharge was upgraded until he requested his records on 2 Nov 2011. 2 On or about 5 Sep 1986, he failed to perform quality On or about 16 Oct 1987, he failed to report to work. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03635
His punishment consisted of reduction in rank to the grade of airman basic (AB) (E-1) and restriction to the base for 60 days. On 11 February 1987, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge for misconduct under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 5-47b and 5-49c, with a general discharge. The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged without probation or rehabilitation with a general (under honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00674
(b) On 10 August 1986, received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to call his duty section as directed. On 18 December 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) approved applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable; however, his request for a change of RE code was denied. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01190
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01190 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and her narrative reason for separation be changed to misconduct-general. But, it is our opinion that a general (under other than honorable conditions)...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01584
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. On 23 June 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 14 days (Exhibit F) and on 8 July 2004, the Board provided the applicant the opportunity to respond to the FBI...