Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00016
Original file (BC-2012-00016.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
 

 

 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00016 
COUNSEL: NO 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded 
to honorable.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
His discharge was the result of a misunderstanding.  
 
The  applicant  did  not  provide  any  documentation  in  support  of 
his request.  
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 _________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 31 Mar 92, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.   
 
On  27  Sep  94,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s 
intent  to  recommend  his  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  under  the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen for 
a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of 
the  notification  of  discharge.    The  specific  reason  for  the 
proposed action was: 
 
    Between  21  Apr  93  and  7  Sep  94,  the  applicant  had  one 
instance  of  disorderly  conduct;  one  instance  of  voluntarily 
riding in a vehicle being driven by an individual who was under 
the  influence  of  alcohol;  one  instance  of  AFR  35-10,  Dress  and 
Personal  Appearance  of  Air  Force  Personnel  violation,  and  one 
instance  of  failing  to  report  to  the  Senior  Enlisted  Advisor 
when asked to.  For these instances of misconduct, the applicant 
received  two  letters  of  reprimand  (LOR)  and  an  Article  15, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 
 
The applicant after consulting with counsel elected to waive his 
right to submit a statement on his own behalf.  
 
On  5  Oct  94,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  reviewed  the  case 
and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to  support  a  discharge  and 

 

recommended  that  he  receive  a  general  (under  honorable 
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.   
 
On  6  Oct  94,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s 
discharge.    On  21  Oct  94,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with 
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in 
the  grade  of  airman  first  class.    He  served  2  years,  6  months 
and 21 days of total active service.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  an  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 process.  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.  He 
has  provided  no  evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe 
otherwise.    We  considered  upgrading  the  discharge  based  on 
clemency; however, in view of the lack of any evidence regarding 
the applicant's activities since leaving the service, we find no 
basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  on  that  basis.  
However,  should  the  applicant  decide  to  submit  documentation 
related  to  his  post-service  activities,  we  may  be  inclined  to 
reconsider his request based on new evidence.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no basis for us to 
recommend 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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

2

 

  
  
  

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-00016  in  Executive  Session  on  5  Nov  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 
 
 
 
 
                                  Panel Chair 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 12.  

 

3



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00478

    Original file (BC-2012-00478.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00478 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 29 Dec 92, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01031

    Original file (BC-2012-01031.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SGP recommends denial. The complete SGP evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. AFRC/A1K states that, absent a medical determination from an authoritative medical source validating the medical condition presented by 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-2012-02198

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-02113

    Original file (BC-2012-02113.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended that he receive a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 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. Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation, dated 6 Jun 12.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02110

    Original file (BC-2007-02110.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. However, they concluded applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00016

    Original file (BC 2014 00016.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider his application. On 28 Apr 14, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that that the application will only be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03563

    Original file (BC 2014 03563.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He requested an administrative discharge board and representation by military counsel. On 23 Sep 87, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s conditional waiver and ordered the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Oct 14, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01955

    Original file (BC-2012-01955.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He assumed his discharge was upgraded until he requested his records on 2 Nov 2011. 2 On or about 5 Sep 1986, he failed to perform quality On or about 16 Oct 1987, he failed to report to work. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00106

    Original file (BC 2014 00106.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As of this date, no response has been received by this office. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities warrant such consideration. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.