RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04603
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged under his free will and upon his request. His
records since his discharge are good. He was young at the time
he asked for the discharge and did not realize the bearing it
would play on the direction of his life. He has tried to get
employment and this has hampered his search.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 February
1987. On 20 December 1988, the applicant was notified of his
commanders intent to discharge him from the Air Force for a
pattern of misconduct (conduct prejudicial to good order and
discipline). Specifically, the applicant received an
Article 15, a vacated punishment, three Letters of Reprimand and
three Letters of Counseling. The applicant acknowledged his
commanders intent to discharge him, his right to counsel and to
submit statements on his behalf. He consulted counsel, however,
he declined to submit matters.
On 10 January 1989, the staff judge advocate found the discharge
legally sufficient. On 19 January 1989, the commander approved
the applicants discharge. He was separated on 27 January 1989
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. His
narrative reason for separation was listed as misconduct
pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He
was credited with 1 year, 11 months and 10 days of active duty
service.
Pursuant to the Board's request for information, the FBI indicated
that, on the basis of the evidence provided, they were unable to
locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.
After receiving a request for post-service information, the
applicant stated he is asking for a second chance at life and the
opportunity to rectify the wrong choices he made in his young
life. He met and fell in love with a young woman and she did not
like the fact that he was in the military. He made a shameful
mistake and he has had to live with for 20 years.
He is now 44 years old and has earned an Associates Degree in
Science. He graduated with honors and maintained a 3.6 grade
point average. He is currently working towards his Bachelors of
Science with the intent to teach once he graduates.
His discharge has not only been a personal shame, but has also
hindered him from finding employment. He asks that you find it
in your hearts to make the change on his DD Form 214 to resolve
this shame and allow him to possibly make a difference in
someones life.
The applicants complete response is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
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. In the
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based
on clemency; however, in the absence of evidence from members of
the community attesting to applicants successful post-service
adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not
inclined to extend clemency at this time. 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number 2011-04603 in Executive Session on 17 April 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, Applicants Response, undated.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00717
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00717 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 20 May 1996, the commander directed the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00226
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00226 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. After considering the applicants statement, his commander recommended the applicant for discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01606
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01606 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Air Force never provided him with the appropriate diagnosis, education or treatment. On 1 October 1985, the discharge authority determined that a general discharge was...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00630
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00630 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant received a general discharge on 5 Jun 74 after serving 3 years and 2 days on active duty. It appears the applicant is requesting upgrade of his discharge on...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02668
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS At the time he was disciplined, he requested that he be discharged and was subsequently rendered a general discharge. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02668 in Executive Session on 16 December 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04881
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04881 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 19 December 1989, the applicant was notified of his commanders intent to discharge him from the Air Force for irresponsibility in managing his personal finances. On 14...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02688
He was unaware that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) was available to upgrade his discharge. A legal review was conducted by the staff judge advocate who recommended the applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the request be denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04045
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04045 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 11 July 2011, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice to warrant changing his narrative reason for...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02760
The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the requested change to his discharge characterization. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01634
As noted by the military judge during his court-martial, he unknowingly downloaded the files, but afterwards did not take the due diligence to delete the illegal files. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. We considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, in view of the applicants overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge and the limited...