Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04207
Original file (BC 2012 04207.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04207
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be given honorable discharge certificates for his 
honorable discharges in 1980 and 1984. (Admin Corrected).

2.  His under other than honorable conditions discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Sep 1984, he was arrested for possession of a controlled 
substance (marijuana).  His attorney presented evidence that 
proved one of the sources was not reliable. The evidence against 
him should have been thrown out.  However, the trial was so 
hurried that he was discharged before he knew what was going on.

After he received his 10 percent disability rating he was told 
that he has one honorable and one dishonorable [sic] discharge.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Mar 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.  On 13 Aug 1980, he extended his 
enlistment for a period of 19 months for the purpose of a 
Permanent Change of Station assignment.  On 23 Dec 1980, he was 
honorably discharged for the purpose of reenlistment.

On 24 Dec 1980, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a 
period of six years.  On 23 Sep 1984, he was honorably 
discharged for the sole purpose of reenlistment.

On 24 Sep 1984, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air 
Force.

On 7 Dec 1984, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, 
with service characterized as under other than honorable 
conditions.  His narrative reason for separation is “REQ FOR 
DISCHARGE IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.”  He had 
approximately 7 years and 8 months of total active service.  The 
applicant’s discharge package cannot be located; therefore, 
further information regarding his discharge is not available.

In a 15 May 2013 electronic communiqué, SAF/MRBR states that 
upon completion of the Board, administrative correction of his 
official military personnel record will be made and he will be 
issued Honorable Discharge Certificates for his honorable 
discharges in 1980 and 1984.

On 13 May 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  On 11 Jun 2013, the applicant provided numerous 
post service documents for the Board’s consideration.

His complete submission, 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.  We have thoroughly reviewed the circumstances surrounding 
the applicant's discharge and find no impropriety in the 
characterization of service.  Considered alone, we conclude the 
discharge proceedings were proper and the characterization of 
the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  
Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the 
events which precipitated the discharge.  Further, we may base 
our decision on matters of equity and justice, rather than 
simply on whether rules and regulations which existed at the 
time were followed. After careful consideration of the 
applicant’s request and the evidence of record, we find 
sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an injustice to warrant upgrading the 
characterization of the applicant’s discharge to general (under 
honorable conditions) on the basis of clemency.  In this 
respect, we note that in support of his request, the applicant 
has provided a letter discussing his honorable character and 
notable achievements in the over 28 years since his discharge, 
to include gainful employment and opening his own business.  It 
appears the applicant has successfully transitioned to civilian 
life and the characterization of his discharge as UOTHC no 
longer serves a useful purpose.  Moreover, we find absolutely no 
evidence of any derogatory involvement with any civil 
authorities in the over 28 years since his discharge.  Based on 
a totality of the evidence before us, we find it would be unjust 
for him to continue to endure the effects of the stigma that is 
attached to a UOTHC discharge.  Therefore, in view of the above, 
we deem the interest of justice can best be served by removing 
this blemish from his life and upgrading his discharge to 
general (under honorable conditions) on the basis of clemency. 
We considered upgrading his discharge to honorable; however, we 
do not believe that an upgrade to a fully honorable discharge is 
warranted.  Accordingly, we recommend that his records be 
corrected to the extent indicated below. 

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 
7 December 1984, he was discharged with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions).

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 20 Jun 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

     , Chair
     , Member
     , Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-04207:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 May 2013, w/atch.




                                   
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • 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-2011-02656

    Original file (BC-2011-02656.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02656 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request that he be provided an honorable discharge certificate for his initial period...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 02656

    Original file (BC 2011 02656.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02656 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request that he be provided an honorable discharge certificate for his initial period...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 01529

    Original file (BC 2011 01529.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01529 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00004

    Original file (BC 2013 00004.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. On 8 Jun 87, the discharge authority requested permission to execute the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force with the characterization of service of UOTHC while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00004

    Original file (BC-2013-00004.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. On 8 Jun 87, the discharge authority requested permission to execute the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force with the characterization of service of UOTHC while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02855

    Original file (BC 2013 02855.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board concluded the evidence presented was sufficiently credible enough to substantiate upgrading the discharge to a general discharge; however, his misconduct and substandard performance did not warrant an Honorable discharge. While the Air Force Discharge Review Board was compelled to upgrade the applicant’s under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to general (under honorable conditions) discharge, we find no basis to recommend a further upgrade of the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A

    Original file (BC-1984-04083A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A

    Original file (BC-1991-02293A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05603

    Original file (BC 2013 05603.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Before recommending discharge the commander noted he reviewed the applicant’s records. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service information we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted on that basis. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...