Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05063
Original file (BC-2011-05063.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-05063 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He is homeless and needs his discharge upgraded to be eligible 
for a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Grant Per Diem (GPD) 
program. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 27 Nov 81, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the Air 
Force. 

 

On 19 Sep 83, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct – 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The specific 
reason for the discharge action was the applicant received two 
Article 15s for failure to go and wrongful use of marijuana; 
three letters of counseling, and two letters for missing 
substance abuse group appointments. 

 

His commander advised him of his rights in this matter. The 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right 
to submit a statement. On 6 Oct 83, the case was found legally 
sufficient and, on 7 Oct 83, the discharge authority directed the 
applicant be furnished a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 13 Oct 83, he 
was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge 


and was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 17 days of active 
service. 

 

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

 

On 11 Jun 12, a copy of the FBI Investigative Report and a 
request for post-service information was forwarded to the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; 
however, 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 BC-2011-05063 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 12, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02198

    Original file (BC-2012-02198.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02198 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 25 Nov 83, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class. On 2 Jul 84, the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04967

    Original file (BC-2011-04967.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for misconduct was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discharge authority’s discretion. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04691

    Original file (BC-2011-04691.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative discharge board met on 5 Nov 82 and recommended the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge without probation or rehabilitation. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant the relief sought in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00330

    Original file (BC-2012-00330.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00330 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from general, under honorable conditions (UHC) to honorable. On 7 Aug 84, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. In our view, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00683

    Original file (BC-2010-00683.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00683 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 9 Mar 84, he was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge and credited with 18 years, 1 month, and 16 days of total active service. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01881

    Original file (BC-2009-01881.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01881 INDEX CODE: A67.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00529

    Original file (BC-2010-00529.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2010-00529 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ____________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. On 17 Mar 89, he acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00865

    Original file (BC-2010-00865.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged on 12 Oct 84. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 10, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00785

    Original file (BC-2008-00785.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00785 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Apr 08.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01811

    Original file (BC-2009-01811.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s UOTHC discharge. 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...