RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04565 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable, his narrative reason for separation be changed 
from “unsatisfactory performance” to “satisfactory performance,” 
and his separation and reenlistment codes be changed to reflect 
honorable conditions. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In 1985, he was falsely accused then discharged from the Air 
Force. He never had the opportunity to defend himself properly 
and voice his side of the incidences. His military career and 
life were destroyed during that time period. He wants his 
discharge to reflect his performance and awards. He wants to 
correct the wrong that shouldn’t have happened, complete 
20 years of service, and retire in good faith under honorable 
conditions. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, and personal supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 July 1980. 

 

On 9 August 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander 
that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force 
for unsatisfactory duty performance under the provisions of 
AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-26a. 
The specific reasons for this action are noted in the Letter of 
Notification of Discharge at Exhibit B. 

 

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 consulted counsel and 
submitted 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 13 September 1985 and was credited 
with 5 years, 1 month and 27 days of active duty service which 
included 2 years, 8 months and 4 days of Foreign Service. 

 

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the 
applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge on 
28 January 1987 and concluded that there existed no legal or 
equitable basis for upgrade of discharge. 

 

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

 

On 29 March 2012, the applicant was given an opportunity to 
submit comments regarding his post service activities 
(Exhibit C). 

 

In response, the applicant provided an expanded statement 
indicating there was a personality conflict between him and the 
Flight Chief which led to allegations of unsatisfactory duty 
performance and his subsequent discharge from the Air Force. 
Since leaving the Air Force he has worked very hard to prove that 
he can do a good job. He has earned two Associates and one 
Bachelor’s Degrees and made positive contributions to his 
community, and profession. In support of his expanded statement, 
the applicant provides letters of support from colleagues 
friends. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The applicant’s 
reenlistment code, separation code, and narrative reason for 
separation which were assigned at the time of his separation 
accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation; evidence 
has not been provided that would lead us to believe otherwise. 
In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the 
discharge based on clemency and considered the applicant's 
overall post-service activities and accomplishments; however, 
the evidence submitted was not 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 this application 
BC-2011-04565 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 11 November 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 March 2012. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair