Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00074
Original file (BC-2011-00074.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00074 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Air Force provided discipline without counseling. During 
his service, he suffered from depression and a sense of 
inadequacy. He began to drink in order to ease the pain and try 
to fit in. He received reprimands for his poor attitude which 
led to him to being put on probation and finally discharged. He 
understands being discharged for the way he conducted himself at 
the time, but thinks it is unfair that he was not offered 
psychological therapy for his depression and inferiority 
complex. His discharge warrants an upgrade because he served 
with love and pride for his country and the United States Air 
Force. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, and DD Form 257AF, General 
Discharge Certificate. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate that he 
enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Sep 76. 

 

On 6 Apr 82, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for apathy, 
defective attitude, and inability to expend effort 
constructively. The reasons for the action included various 
instances of failure to go to his appointed place of duty and 
dereliction in the performance of his duty, as well as one 


instance of failure to obey a lawful order, for which he 
received three letters of counseling, two letters of reprimand, 
and two instances of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ). 

 

On 6 Apr 82, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and, after consulting with legal counsel, submitted a statement 
in his behalf. 

 

On 11 May 82, the case file was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation on 
19 May 82. 

 

On 21 May 82, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with five years 
and eight months of total active service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a report indicating they were 
unable to locate an arrest report based on the information 
provided. 

 

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. 
In response, the applicant indicates that removing the stain of 
having less than an honorable discharge would certainly help him 
on his road to regaining his self esteem. He has worked hard to 
attain his status as a journeyman electrician and now has almost 
twenty-two years in his trade. He belongs to several 
electrician social clubs that do charity work for many different 
causes. In support of his response, he provides an expanded 
statement and copies of his apprenticeship diploma, journeyman 
card, various certificates of achievement, and seven supporting 
statements. The applicant’s 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 an 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 warranting corrective action. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s General 


(Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for unsuitability was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the discharge authority’s discretion and 
he has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe 
otherwise. 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 at this time. 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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2011-00074 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jul 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Aug 11, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03103

    Original file (BC-2007-03103.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03103 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His characterization of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01692

    Original file (BC-2012-01692.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Dec 87, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) considered a request from the applicant to upgrade his discharge to Honorable. Exhibit C. FBI Record. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 12.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05675

    Original file (BC 2013 05675.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81. On 29 Jul 82, an evaluation officer reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended he be discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge for a progressive downward trend in his attitude and duty performance. On 24 Dec 85, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and reenlistment code, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00074

    Original file (BC 2014 00074.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He requested that his HOR and POE be changed after his last reenlistment on 13 Jan 96 because at that time, he was a legal resident of San Antonio, TX. According to item 7(a) of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, his POE at time of entry reflects “Springfield, MA.” According to item 7(b), his HOR at time of entry reflects “Hartford, CT.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802710

    Original file (9802710.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Consistent with his findings, the evaluation officer recommended discharge with a general discharge certificate. The records indicate member's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00074

    Original file (BC-2005-00074.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. On 15 April 2005, SAF/MIBR informed the applicant that they contacted officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to receive copies of his service medical records but they did not receive a response. A copy of letter, with attachments, attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 April 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02826

    Original file (BC-2007-02826.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02826 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 1 Aug 81, the applicant was counseled for failure to go. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF FBI...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03370

    Original file (BC-2011-03370.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to honorable. On 14 Nov 11, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation concerning his activities since leaving military service (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03370 in Executive Session on 12 Apr 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04691

    Original file (BC-2011-04691.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative discharge board met on 5 Nov 82 and recommended the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge without probation or rehabilitation. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant the relief sought in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01294

    Original file (BC-2003-01294.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that if his recommendation was approved, the applicant's separation would be characterized as honorable; however, he did recommend probation and rehabilitation. He served 11 years, 8 months and 12 days of active duty service. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility code of "2C," indicating the member was involuntarily...