Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03134
Original file (BC-2010-03134.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-03134
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED: NO

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He applied for a loan through the Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA)  and
was informed he could request this change.  He is a good and  honest  family
man.  He has not had any  encounters  with  the  police.   He  has  attached
documentation showing his longevity with his employers.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and his resume’.

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

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Nov 82, the applicant contracted his enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air
Force.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  airman  first  class,
having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of 16 Nov 83.

On  22  Aug  85,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  she  was
recommending his  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The  specific  reasons  for  the  discharge  action  were  his
receiving two Article 15s, a Vacation of Nonjudicial  Punishment,  a  Letter
of Reprimand, and verbal counseling.

His commander advised him of  his  rights  in  this  matter.   He  applicant
acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and  after  consulting
with legal counsel waived his to submit statements in his  own  behalf.   On
17 Oct 85, the legal office reviewed  the  case  and  recommended  discharge
with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 1 Nov 85, the discharge authority directed a  general  discharge  without
probation and rehabilitation.  He was discharged on 18 Nov  85.   He  served
three years and three days of active service.

____________________________________________________________

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  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.   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 AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2010-03134 in Executive Session on 16 Nov 10, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 10, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.





                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02979

    Original file (BC-2010-02979.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged on 1 May 85. 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 D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Sep 10, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05454

    Original file (BC 2012 05454.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05454 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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)...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02905

    Original file (BC-2010-02905.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02905 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from Conditions That Interfere With Military Service-Not Disability-Character and Behavior Disorder to DSM IV...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03477

    Original file (BC-2010-03477.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 Jan 84, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct with service characterized as general. On 11 Jan 85, the applicant’s commander again notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02579

    Original file (BC-2010-02579.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of the nonjudicial punishment action reflects no error in the processing of the Article 15. The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 13 Oct 10, copies of the investigative report and the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant for his review and comment within 30 days, along with a request for documentation regarding his activities since leaving...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03134

    Original file (BC 2012 03134.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSID states the SAEMR is awarded to all Air Force service members who, after 1 Jan 1963, qualify as "expert" in small arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04303

    Original file (BC-2008-04303.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04303 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 21 Mar 85, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge board (ADB) action for minor disciplinary infractions,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02582

    Original file (BC-2010-02582.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02582 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 29 Oct 82, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03781

    Original file (BC-2009-03781.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He submitted a conditional waiver of his administrative discharge board rights. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02807

    Original file (BC-2002-02807.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 7 Jun 85. He petitioned the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to upgrade his discharge to honorable in 1993. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice.