AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00118 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded 
to honorable. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  discharged  for  reporting  heroin  abuse  in  Tan  Son  Nhut, 
Vietnam in 1971. 
 
He  was  discharged  very  suddenly  and  warned  not  to  continue  his 
efforts  or  he  could  end  up  in  Leavenworth  prison.    He  did  not 
realize the Pentagon papers had been released the same month or 
that  it  may  have  created  an  atmosphere  of  hyper-vigilance.  He 
knew  the  Air  Force  did  not  want  heroin  use  amongst  its  ranks, 
but did not know the complexity of the situation. 
 
He was puzzled by his sudden discharge. He was given a general 
discharge,  yet  his  personnel  records  do  not  show  any  negative 
incidents with his service. 
 
He  became  a  sergeant  in  less  than  two  years  of  service;  there 
were no records of misconduct. 
 
His  job  was  to  identify  problems  and  he  was  doing  his  job.  He 
considered  his  commander  a  top  rate  officer  (he  was  Brigadier 
General select) and they seemed to get along. 
 
The  general  discharge  greatly  hampers  his  job  prospects.    If 
given an honorable discharge, he would be a more productive part 
of society. 
 
He just became aware that General L. has had his service record 
corrected and wondered if a correction for him is warranted. 
 
The  new  release  of  formerly  classified  information  about  the 
Vietnam war should set the record straight. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD  Form  214,  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  Report  of 
Discharge;  DD  Form  293,  Application  for  Review  of  Discharge  or 

Separation  from  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States,  and  a 
personal statement. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 4 Mar 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 
On  29  Aug  1971,  his  commander  notified  him  he  was  recommending 
he  be  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-12,  Separation 
for  Unsuitability,  Unfitness,  Misconduct,  Resignation,  or 
Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures 
for  the  Rehabilitation  Program,  for  a  pattern  of  repeated 
attempts to secure a discharge from the Air Force.  The specific 
reason  for  this  action  was  an  evaluation  was  made  of  the 
applicant’s  mental  status  on  15  Aug  1971  and  he  was  found  to 
have  a  character  and  behavior  disorder,  passive-aggressive 
personality. 
 
On  29  Aug  1971,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
discharge notification. 
 
On  15  Sep  1971,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  found  the 
discharge legally sufficient. 
 
On 23 Sep 1971, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, 
with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.    He 
served  2  years,  6  months,  and  20  days  of  total  active  service 
including 6 months and 25 days of foreign service. 
 
On  24  Feb  1972,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  evaluated 
his  application  and  concluded  that  a  change  in  the  type  or 
nature of his discharge was not warranted. 
 
On  22  May  2012,  a  request  for  post-service  information  was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).   
 
The applicant responded on 5 Jun 2012 and provided copies of a 
personal  statement,  several  letters  of  appreciation  and  an 
article regarding a mobile home park he and his wife sold to a 
non-profit organization. 
 
Since  leaving  the  military,  he  attended  college  and  received  a 
degree  in  sociology.    He  worked  for  the  county  as  a  counselor 
for at-risk children.  He was promoted to senior duty probation 
officer.  He retired early so he could manage a mobile home park 
he and his wife owned.  He is now retired and lives on a small 
farm.  

 

2

His complete response, 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.  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. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3

 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
in Executive Session on 21 Jun 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00118: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 May 2012, w/atch. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 2012, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair

 

4