Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00578
Original file (BC-2011-00578.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00578 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on isolated 
incidents in his six years of excellent character and ratings. 

 

He was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and Air Force Longevity 
Service Award. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; DD Forms 4, Enlistment Record – United States; AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, and DD Form 230, Service Record. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 18 Jan 55, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

 

On or about 19 Feb 59, the applicant, without proper authority, 
failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty. For this misconduct, he received an Article 15, Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and reduction to the grade of 
airman third class. 

 

On or about 7 Mar 59, the applicant failed to repair. For this 
misconduct, he received restriction to the base for 14 days. 

 

On or about 7 May 59, the applicant was placed on the Airman’s 
Quality Control Roster for a period of 120 days. 

 

On or about 16 Feb 60, the applicant reported to work under the 
influence of alcohol. For this misconduct, he received an 
Article 15, UCMJ, and reduction to the grade of airman basic. 


 

On or about 21 Jul 60, the applicant without proper authority, 
failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty. For this misconduct, he was relieved of flight duty. 

 

On several occasions, the applicant was counseled in regards to 
haircuts, shaving, and general appearance when reporting to 
work; however, he failed to exercise the initiative to correct 
these discrepancies. 

 

On 17 Oct 60, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability, for 
apathy, defective attitude and inability to expand effort 
constructively. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge. 

 

On 31 Oct 60, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge. On 4 Nov 60, the applicant was discharged from the 
Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge 
in the grade of airman basic. He served 5 years, 9 months and 
17 days of total active service. 

 

On 15 Nov 11, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 15 days. As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
C). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After careful 
consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication 
the action taken to affect his discharge and the 
characterization of service were improper, contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, 
or based on factors other than his own behavior and inability to 
comply with standards. In addition, we find insufficient 
evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be 
upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered the 
applicant’s overall record of service and the events which 
precipitated the discharge; 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 Docket Number BC-
2011-00578 in Executive Session on 1 December 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 February 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 17 November 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00578

    Original file (BC-2012-00578.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    While the applicant’s service in Vietnam does not meet the requirement for documentation on the DD Form 214, the Board has found it in the interest of justice to provide similarly situated applicants a “boots-on-the-ground” letter, and therefore recommends the record be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03696

    Original file (BC-2002-03696.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03696 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The evaluation officer indicated that the applicant’s service did not appear to warrant an honorable discharge. He had completed a total of 6...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03704

    Original file (BC-2011-03704.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03704 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) Code be changed from 2B, which denotes “Approved Involuntary Separation with less than Honorable Discharge,” to one that will allow him to reenlist. As a result, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 17 Feb 11. As of this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00021

    Original file (BC-2012-00021.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, E, and G. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove his 19 Feb 2010 FA from the AFFMS. DPSIM states the applicant is requesting his FA dated 19 Feb 2010 be removed from the AFFMS. The complete DPSID evaluation, with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101410

    Original file (0101410.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F. On 17 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report and a request to provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities was sent to the applicant (Exhibit G). On 23 Aug 01, applicant provided a statement explaining his activities since leaving the service. Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00040

    Original file (BC-2003-00040.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Most of the applicant’s records were destroyed in the Jul 73 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00582

    Original file (BC 2014 00582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Will be administratively corrected) APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an honorable discharge and requests that he be provided more favorable separation and RE codes. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code “2C” is erroneous and will administratively correct his record to reflect RE code “3A” which denotes “First-term Airman [involuntarily separated] {entry level} for inability to satisfactorily progress in a required training program without characterization of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01667

    Original file (BC-2009-01667.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant re-enlisted on 5 Dec 55 for a period of four years. By letter, dated 27 Jul 09, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX County Veterans Service Officer, attests to the applicant’s good character, eluding to his struggle with alcohol and citing the lack of help for alcoholics in “the old days” (Exhibit F). The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-01667 in Executive Session on 1 Sep 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

  • 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-04643

    Original file (BC-2011-04643.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Nov 1982 he reported late for duty. On 25 Apr 1983 he failed to report for duty at the appointed time and place. 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.