AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00120
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:
His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one
isolated incident in five years of service with no other adverse
action. He overslept and was less than 30 minutes late for an
office appointment.
In support of the applicant’s appeal, he 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:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 September
1983.
The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFR 39-10. The specific reasons are as follows:
a. Between on or about 17 July 1984 and 26 February 1985 the
applicant received three Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for his
failure to report to a scheduled appointment, wrongfully
appropriating a government vehicle, and for being derelict in the
performance of his duties.
b. On or about 21 December 1984, the applicant went on leave
thru 4 January 1985 for a period of 15 days. He was to be back
by 2400 on 4 January 1985 and he was not. As a result, his leave
was extended four days. For this misconduct he received a Letter
of Reprimand (LOR).
c. On 26 February 1985, the applicant was offered an Article
15 for wrongfully appropriating a government vehicle, being
derelict in the performance of his duties and for disobeying a
lawful order (items stated above). The applicant demanded a trial
by court-martial and on 1 May 1985, he was convicted and
sentenced to confinement for 15 days, to perform hard labor
without confinement for 45 days, to forfeit $100 pay per month
for two months and a reduction to the grade of airman first
class.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected to submit
a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case
file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient
and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred
with the recommendation and directed a general discharge. The
applicant was discharged on 18 July 1985. He served 5 years,
5 months and 27 days on active duty and credited with 2 years,
9 months and 4 days of foreign service.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation indicated that on the basis of the data furnished,
they were unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Additionally, due to
lack of evidence of a successful post-service adjustment, we do
not find it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade his
discharge on the basis of clemency. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
recommend granting the relief sought.
2
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-00120 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-00120 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 October 2011, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
3
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03207
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 December 1983 in the grade of airman basic. On 19 July 1984, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01834
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01834 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02505
On 10 March 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to general. 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 C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 June 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04246
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04246 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant acknowledged his commanders intent, his right to legal counsel, to present his case before an administrative discharge board and to submit statements on his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00261
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00261 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 January 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03507
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 December 1984. The applicant received two Letters of Reprimand (LORs) on or about 2 December 1985 and 26 April 1986 for failure to obey a lawful order and he was derelict in the performance of his duties. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00120
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00120 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her involuntary discharge (under honorable conditions) for personality disorder be changed to a medical separation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Medical Consultant states that while the evidence is not supportive of a medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04250
As of this date, this office has received no response. 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 C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 March 2013.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01970
The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application. They concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04476
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04476 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) characterization of discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to help him find suitable employment. ...