RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00692 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has maintained a positive lifestyle for over 20 years; an 
honorable discharge would assist in his search for employment. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 25 Feb 86, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of four years. He had prior honorable service from 
27 Nov 68 to 17 Apr 73. On 17 Apr 73, he was honorably released 
from active duty and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired 
List (TDRL). 

 

On 23 Jun 88, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air 
Force for a pattern of misconduct—conduct prejudicial to good 
order and discipline. The reasons for the proposed action were: 
1) He wrote several checks without sufficient funds in his 
account to pay the checks; 2) He was derelict in the performance 
of his duties on several occasions; 3) He was disrespectful to a 
Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) on two occasions; 4) He refused to 
comply with instructions of the correctional custody monitors; 
and 5) He breached correctional custody. 

 

On 28 Jun 88, after consulting with counsel, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, and was 
advised of his right to present his case before an administrative 
discharge board, to be represented by military counsel, and to 
submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 9 Aug 88, a Board of Officers convened and found the applicant 
was subject to discharge for a pattern of misconduct. The Board 
recommended the applicant be separated with a general discharge, 
and not be offered probation and rehabilitation. 


 

The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support the findings and recommendations of the 
Board and recommended the applicant receive a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved the separation 
and directed a general discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation. 

 

The applicant was entitled to special consideration for lengthy 
service probation. He made a formal request for lengthy service 
probation consideration, and it was denied by the wing commander. 
The Director of Military Law reviewed the case file and found it 
legally sufficient. The case was forwarded to Headquarters Air 
Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) for review by the 
Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF). The SECAF directed the 
administrative discharge be executed, and denied lengthy service 
probation. 

 

On 30 Jun 89, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman 
first class, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, by reason of misconduct-pattern of conduct 
prejudicial to good order and discipline, and received a general 
discharge. He served on active duty for a period of 19 years, 
4 months, and 6 days. 

 

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

 

On 29 Apr 11, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days. At the same 
time, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to 
provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving 
the service (Exhibit D). 

 

The applicant responded with a personal letter. He does not feel 
it would be productive to review his military history, as he is 
sure his recollections will vary considerably from those who 
placed him in this situation. He does not agree with the 
findings that left him without a military career and deprived him 
of his retirement after nineteen years of faithful service. Upon 
release from military service he worked for Continental Airlines 
as an aircraft instrument technician for 6 to 8 months. He was 
offered a job with McDonald Douglas writing technical manuals for 
the MD-11. He worked for several small companies as a graphics 
designer. He created “New Faces Camera Club,” where for over 
25 years he has provided support and advice to young 
photographers and models who could not afford the high cost of 
modeling schools. He currently works for Empire Pageants and has 
done so since 1990. He has an Associate’s Degree in Computer 
Design. He has held several jobs in the design field, and 
continues to do freelance designing. He worked for the Volunteer 


Center of Riverside County and the Press Enterprise Newspaper of 
Riverside. He is a live-in caregiver for a friend that is not 
capable of self-care. 

 

The applicant provided one character reference letter. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit 
E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 have noted the 
information provided by the applicant related to his post service 
activities. However, we do not find this evidence sufficient to 
warrant favorable consideration of the applicant’s request based 
on clemency. 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-2011-00692 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation, dated 14 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 11, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair