ARECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03035 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received a ticket for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and 
speeding while driving off base. 

 

He allowed the civilian court to handle his case with the belief 
it would not risk his military career. 

 

He plead guilty in civilian court on 19 Jul 96 and within one 
month of returning to work, he received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) from the squadron commander. 

 

He was given a general discharge (under honorable conditions) 
and barred from the base. 

 

Had he known the consequences, he would have allowed the 
military to handle his case under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ). 

 

It was unjust that he did not receive proper counsel. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the 
civilian Judgment of Conviction, AF Form 2731, Substance Abuse 
Reorientation and Treatment Program Disposition; AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, a LOR, and base debarment 
letter. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 12 Aug 93, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years. 

 

On 23 Aug 96, his commander notified him he was recommending his 
separation from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, for a pattern of 
misconduct involving minor disciplinary infractions. The 
specific reasons for this action were in Jun 94, he committed 
carnal knowledge with a female under the age of 16 years. For 
this offense he received Article 15 punishment on 16 Sep 94. 
This Article 15 was placed in his Unfavorable Information File 
(UIF). 

 

On 19 Apr 95, he received Article 15 punishment for violation of 
a lawful general regulation by wrongfully consuming alcohol 
while under the age of 21. This incident occurred on 1 Apr 
95 and the Article 15 was placed in his UIF. 

 

On or about 10 Aug 96, he was arraigned in civilian court for 
the charges of DUI (1st offense) and for speeding. He plead 
guilty to both offenses. His sentence was a fine of $335.50, 
30 days in jail (suspended), and 30 days revocation of his 
driver’s license. For these actions he received a LOR, which 
was placed in his UIF. 

 

On 26 Aug 96, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient. 

 

On 3 Sep 96, the applicant was separated from the Air Force with 
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 
3 years and 22 days of total active service. 

 

On 21 Sep 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board concluded no 
change in discharge was warranted. 

 

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

 

On 2 Feb 12, a copy of the FBI report and a request for post-
service information were forwarded to the applicant for review 
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 

 

On 1 Mar 12, the applicant provided copies of a nomination 
letter to “Who’s Who Among Students in American Junior 
Colleges”, eligibility, recognition, and membership letters from 
the Phi Theta Kappa International Honor Society, an invitation 
letter from Louisiana Tech University, a membership letter for 
the Golden Key International Honour Society, and a statement in 
support of his claim. In his statement he indicates the unfair 


discharge he received did not interfere with his goals and 
believes the skills he learned in the military taught him to 
overcome the obstacles in his life. He hopes the achievements 
he has received demonstrate to the Panel that his previous 
behavior is not indicative of what he is destined to be. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. While the applicant 
only references his civilian conviction for DUI as the basis for 
his discharge, it was but one of several issues which formed the 
basis for his administrative discharge for a pattern of 
misconduct, to include committing carnal knowledge with a female 
under the age of 16 years and wrongful consumption of alcohol 
while under the legal age of 21 years. We considered upgrading 
the discharge based on clemency and while we find his post-
service activities commendable, 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 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 
in Executive Session on 8 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-03035: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 10 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair