Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02827
Original file (BC-2011-02827.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02827 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

There is no error. He was discharged due to his actions and 
behavior. He deeply regrets violating the trust his country 
placed in him. Since his discharge he has lived his life as 
honorably as possible. He married, graduated from college, 
became a teacher, and raised two children. He hopes that his 
actions and behavior since his discharge will have some positive 
effect with the decision process. 

 

The applicant did not provide any supporting documents. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS – DISCHARGE UPGRADE NO ADVISORY: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 June 1973. 
He was progressively promoted to the grade of Sergeant, E-4. 

 

In May 1977 the applicant received an Article 15 for possession 
of marijuana on base, with punishment consisting of a suspended 
reduction to the grade of Airman First Class, E-3, and 
forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months. As a result 
of the Article 15, the applicant participated in and 
successfully completed the base drug rehabilitation program in 
April 1978. 

 

On 6 June 1978 the applicant was arrested by civil authorities 
under the charge of cultivation and possession of marijuana. At 
the time of his arrest, the applicant was found in possession of 
one marijuana cigarette, some marijuana seeds and 25 marijuana 
plants. 

 

On 27 September 1978, the applicant was notified by his 
commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the 
Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2; section 
B, paragraph 2-15c. The specific reason for the proposed 
action was; the applicant had been frequently involved in 


behavior that was inconsistent with acceptable Air Force 
standards. Despite attempts to advise and motivate him, his 
behavior continued to have adverse effects on the people and the 
mission of the squadron. His continuous involvement with drugs 
affected his duty performance and judgment. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and was advised of his right to present his case 
before an administrative discharge board, subject to his being 
available, consult counsel, and submit statements on his behalf. 
On 17 October 1978 the applicant waived his right to a hearing 
before a board of officers provided he was issued a general 
discharge certificate. He opted to submit statements on his 
behalf. He again acknowledged his right to military counsel or 
to employ civilian counsel at his own expense if desired but he 
did not indicate whether he would consult counsel or waive his 
right to consult counsel. 

 

Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the 
applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable 
conditions) characterization of service. The applicant was 
released from active duty on 22 November 1978 and was credited 
with 5 years, 5 months and 2 days of active duty service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board's request, the FBI was unable to identify 
an arrest record on the basis of information furnished. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 during the discharge process. 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, or unduly harsh. We 
considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, 
in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a 
successful post-service adjustment in the years since his 
separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency at this time. 


However, the Board is willing to reconsider the applicant’s 
request and have included an Information Bulletin to assist the 
applicant in submitting a future request. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-02827 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 25 July 2011. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04479

    Original file (BC-2011-04479.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 March 2012, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments regarding his post-service activities (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application BC-2011-04479 in Executive Session on 24 July 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs dated 9 November 2011. Exhibit D....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02827

    Original file (BC-2012-02827.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02827 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 29 December 2011 be removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 December 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02802

    Original file (BC-2011-02802.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02802 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 19 Apr 72, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient to support separation with a general discharge. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Oct 11.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02089

    Original file (BC-2003-02089.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02089 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. His commander recommended an honorable discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01414

    Original file (BC-2011-01414.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01414 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 3 November 1971, the applicant volunteered for rehabilitation under the United States Air Force Drug Abuse Program. The applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03358

    Original file (BC-2002-03358.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03358 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00020

    Original file (BC-2010-00020.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00020 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge or an honorable discharge. The Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence on 2 March 1984. The applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00087

    Original file (BC-2006-00087.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant entered the active Air Force on 6 December 1974 and served for a period of three years, one month, and 13 Days, before being discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) service characterization on 18 January 1978. Mental health evaluation in May 1976 noted mild anxiety and depressive symptoms, but no serious mental illness was diagnosed. The preponderance of evidence of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03105

    Original file (BC-2008-03105.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03105 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02632

    Original file (BC-2007-02632.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02632 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. In response to our request, applicant provided post-service information, which is attached at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Exhibit D....