Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01797
Original file (BC-2010-01797.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


.                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-01797
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL: VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be corrected  to  reflect
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young, immature and needed direction.  He is  older  and  understands
how his transgressions affected  his  opportunity  to  serve  in  the  Armed
Forces.

The evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 9  Aug
85 for a term of four  years.   On  17  Dec  86,  he  was  notified  by  his
commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air  Force  for
a  pattern  of  misconduct   consisting   solely   of   minor   disciplinary
infractions.  The  Commander  cited  the  applicant’s  numerous  Letters  of
Counseling, Letters of Admonishment, Letters of Reprimand,  and  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  of  discharge  and
after consulting with legal counsel waived his right  to  an  administrative
discharge board and to submit statements in his own behalf.  The base  legal
office reviewed the case and found it  legally  sufficient  to  support  the
discharge.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed  he
be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 31 Dec  86,  he  was  separated,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,
Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,  for  Misconduct-Pattern  of   Minor
Disciplinary Infractions.  He completed a total of 1 year, 3 months  and  22
days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an  Investigation  Report,  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

On 2 Nov 10, a copy of the FBI report was  provided  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days.  He was also notified  of  his  right  to
submit post-service documentation to support his request.  As of this  date,
no response has been received by this office (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
applicant’s general (under honorable conditions)  discharge  was  consistent
with the substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation  and  within
the commander’s discretionary authority.  He has provided no evidence  which
would lead us to believe the characterization of his  service  was  improper
or contrary to the provisions of the governing  regulation.   We  considered
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we are not  inclined  to
recommend upgrading his discharge based on clemency at this time.   In  view
of the  foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of  sufficient  evidence  to  the
contrary, 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-
01797 in Executive Session on 11 Jan 11, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. -------------, Panel Chair
      Ms. -------------, Member
      Ms. -------------, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 10, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 10, w/atchs.




      ----------------
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01602

    Original file (BC-2007-01602.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 214 and his application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01955

    Original file (BC-2012-01955.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02926

    Original file (BC-2007-02926.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 Jan 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 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. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend the relief sought on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01297

    Original file (BC-2007-01297.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, they did find based upon the record, applicant’s testimony, evidence provided by the applicant, that his reason for discharge was inequitable and directed his reason for separation be changed to “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” They further concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00091

    Original file (BC-2007-00091.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting a change to his RE code, character of service, or narrative reason for separation The complete DPPRS evaluation is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02819

    Original file (BC-2007-02819.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02819 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Feb 08.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00478

    Original file (BC-2012-00478.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00478 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 29 Dec 92, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03866

    Original file (BC-2007-03866.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03866 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 22 Sep 86, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to report at the prescribed time to a military doctor and his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02843

    Original file (BC-2007-02843.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 Aug 82, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to report for duty at the appointed place and time. d. On 15 Sep 82, he received an LOC for failing to adequately support his dependent. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02355

    Original file (BC-2009-02355.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for unsatisfactory performance was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31...