Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03253
Original file (BC 2012 03253.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03253 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was told that after a period of time his general discharge 
would be upgraded to honorable. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 12 Aug 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 28 Aug 1996, his commander notified him he was recommending 
he be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military 
Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, for minor disciplinary actions. The 
specific reasons for his action are reflected in the 
Notification Memorandum, dated 28 Aug 1996, at Exhibit B. 

 

On 28 Aug 1996, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification. 

 

On 4 Sep 1996, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient. 

 

On 10 Sep 1996, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, 
with service characterized as general (under honorable 
conditions). He served 3 years and 29 days of total active 
service. 

 

On 17 May 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. A copy 
of the AFDRB hearing record is at Exhibit B. 

 


On 2 Jan 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C), 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 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 19 Mar 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 


Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-03253: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 2012. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Jan 2012, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03743

    Original file (BC-2012-03743.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03743 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 Sep 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03743

    Original file (BC 2012 03743.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03743 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 Sep 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05140

    Original file (BC 2012 05140.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 Mar 1987, he was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 4 Jan 1989, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. On 24 Mar 1989, the applicant was notified that the AFDRB considered his application and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00222

    Original file (BC-2012-00222.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 Dec 1989, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. 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. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04598

    Original file (BC-2012-04598.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Jan 2011, he was discharged from the Air Force, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02255

    Original file (BC 2013 02255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02255 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to “honorable.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was exonerated by a judge from Washington. In the interest...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00326

    Original file (BC-2013-00326.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his discharge to general (under honorable conditions). On 23 Sep 1975, the applicant submitted a request to the AFDRB for an upgrade to his discharge. On 15 Dec 1975, the applicant was notified that the AFDRB considered his application and concluded the character of his discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05869

    Original file (BC 2013 05869.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Sep 61, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his undesirable discharge. On 23 May 67, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02037

    Original file (BC-2007-02037.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02037 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 DEC 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 14 Feb 91, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05637

    Original file (BC 2013 05637.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 Mar 09, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) notified the applicant that based on his request, a review by the AFDRB was inappropriate and that he should submit his application to the AFBCMR. Even though the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) has granted the applicant service-connection and compensation for a number of medical conditions, but particularly PTSD, the evidence does not reflect PTSD was an unfitting condition at the time of the applicant’s release from military...