RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02760 

 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He served in the US Air Force for seventeen months and did not 
use sound judgment on two occasions and fell guilty to underage 
drinking. 

 

The incidences occurred when he was young and he has learned his 
lesson. He apologizes for his inappropriate actions and behavior 
and would greatly appreciate reconsideration of his case. 

 

He is proudly serving as a supply specialist in the Army 
National Guard and has attained the rank of E-4. To date he has 
been a stellar performer, accomplished mandatory requirements 
and continues to better himself personally and professionally. 

 

His future goal is to return to active duty Air Force and pursue 
his career commitment and academic goals. He believes he would 
be a valuable asset to the Air Force. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the 
Armed Forces of the United States with attachments. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
10 February 2004. On 7 September 2005, the applicant was 
notified by his commander that he was recommending him for 
discharge from the Air Force based upon a Pattern of Misconduct, 
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, 


and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, 
section H, paragraph 5.52. The specific reasons for this action 
were dereliction in the performance of duties by failing to 
refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal 
drinking age of 21 and twice violating a lawful general order by 
wrongfully drinking alcohol while under the age of 21. As a 
result of these incidences the applicant received two Article 
15s and one Letter of Reprimand. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and was advised of his right to consult counsel and 
submit statements on his behalf: he waived his right to consult 
counsel and submit a written statement for consideration. 
Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the 
discharge authority approved the separation and directed the 
applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable 
conditions) characterization of service without probation and 
rehabilitation. The applicant was released from active duty on 
27 September 2005 and was credited with 1 year, 7 months and 18 
days of active duty service. 

 

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the 
applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge on 
26 August 2010 and concluded no change in the discharge was 
warranted. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application 
extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force 
office of primary responsibility (Exhibit C). Accordingly there 
is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant 
contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. 
The applicant further contends that he should not be penalized 
indefinitely for a mistake made while he was young. Even though 
the applicant was 20 years of age when his discharge took place 
there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from 
wrong. 

 

Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline is conduct of a 
nature that tends to disrupt order, discipline, or morale within 
the military community. This category of misconduct usually 
involves causing dissent, disruption, and degradation of mission 
effectiveness. It also includes conduct of a nature that tends 
to bring discredit on the Air Force in the view of the civilian 
community. 

 

The applicant was discharged under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52, 
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, for which the 


least favorable service characterization authorized is under 
other than honorable conditions. The applicant’s commander 
recommended and the discharge authority approved a service 
characterization of under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge which was authorized and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.8.2 states that 
an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge is warranted 
when the applicant’s service has been honest and faithful; 
however, significant negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct 
or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the 
applicant’s military record. 

 

The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or 
injustice to warrant the requested change to his discharge 
characterization. Based on the documentation on file in his 
master personnel records, the discharge, to include the 
characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 November 2011 for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an injustice. 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 that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of 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 this application 
BC-2011-02760 in Executive Session on 27 March 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 21 July 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 October 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 November 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair