Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00129
Original file (BC-2012-00129.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

  

7.  Theft of gasoline from AAFES, on or about 11 Jun 81. 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00129 
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  told  his  discharge  would  automatically  be  upgraded  six 
months after his discharge.  
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant entered the Air Force on 27 Jul 79. 
 
On 28 Apr 83, his commander notified the applicant that he was 
recommending  his  discharge  due  to  misconduct.    The  reason  for 
this  action  was  a  pattern  of  misconduct  prejudicial  to  good 
order and discipline, to include:   
 
1.  Use of marijuana, between 1 Aug 82 and 30 Sep 83. 
 
 
 
2.  Dereliction  of  duty--willful  failure  to  report 
marijuana use by other Air Force members, between 1 Mar 82 and 
30 Sep 82. 
 
 
14 Jan 83 and 9 Jan 83. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6 Apr 82. 
 
 
 

4.  Disobedience of a lawful order, on or about 3 May 82. 
5.  Failure to report to duty, on or about 14 Apr 82. 
6.  Unauthorized  absence  from  place  of  duty,  on  or  about 

3.  Dishonored  checks  issued  to  AAFES,  on  or  about 

 

8.  Dishonored check issued to AAFES, on or about 6 Aug 80. 
9.  Dishonored  check  issued  to  the  NCO  Open  Mess,  on  or 

 
 
 
about 24 Jul 80.   
 
The applicant acknowledged his right to consult with counsel and 
submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.  On 
28 Apr 83, his commander recommended him for discharge due to a 
pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.   
 
On 10 May 83, the case was determined to be legally sufficient 
and,  on  12  May  83,  the  discharge  authority  directed  the 
applicant  be  discharged  with  a  General  (Under  Honorable 
Conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.    
On  17  May  83,  the  applicant  was  furnished  a  General  (Under 
Honorable  Conditions)  Discharge  for  misconduct—a  pattern  of 
misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and credited 
with 3 years, 9 months, and 21 days of service.  
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  (FBI)  indicated  they  were  unable  to  locate  an 
arrest record based on the information available. 
 
On  1  Jun  12,  a  request  for  post-service  information  was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). 
 
In  response,  the  applicant  provides  an  expanded  statement  and 
two  character  reference  letters.    He  states  his  reason  for 
discharge  was  that  he  rode  in  a  van  with  two  airmen  who  were 
smoking  marijuana,  but  he  did  not  report  them  because  he  was 
taught  not  to  be  an  informant.    Since  his  discharge  he  worked 
for  12  years  building  roadways,  for  15  years  as  a 
welder/fabricator  in  a  tool  and  machine  operation  where  he 
worked his way up to foreman, was a Boy Scout leader for seven 
years, a deacon and trustee at his church, and has been a board 
member for two low income senior citizen homes for 12 years.  He 
has  turned  his  life  around  completely  since  his  discharge,  and 
feels the Air Force instilled many of the values and morals that 
he lives by today.  
 
The  applicants’  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.  
 

 
2 

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  on  the  basis  of 
clemency;  however,  we  do  not  find  the  evidence  presented  is 
sufficient  for  us  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  on 
that basis at this time.  In view of the foregoing, and in the 
absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  conclude  that  no  basis 
exists to grant the relief sought in this application.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  the 
application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of 
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  the 
application.    
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00129 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 12. 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  FBI Report. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 12, w/atch. 
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.   
 
 
 
 
   
   
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

    
  Panel Chair  

 
3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03875

    Original file (BC-2005-03875.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 03875 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUNE 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02897

    Original file (BC 2014 02897.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this offense she was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2) (suspended until 1 Aug 82), forfeiture of $50 per month for two months, and 30 days extra duty. On 10 Apr 86, the applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with counsel. The Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00071

    Original file (BC-2005-00071.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Mar 82, the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 29 Jan 81 through 28 Jan 82, was referred to the applicant. Time lost for the following periods: 28-31 Oct 81, 15-16 Dec 81, 29 Jan- 1 Feb 82, 16-21 Feb 82, and 20 May 82-23 Sep 82. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jan 05 for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000152

    Original file (0000152.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The recommendation for discharge for misconduct was approved and the commander directed that applicant be given an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. On 23 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10 (Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) in the grade of airman first class with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge and an RE code of 2B (Separated with other than an honorable discharge). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101270

    Original file (0101270.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although he received an overall rating of 8 on his performance report, the comments of his reporting official indicated that he had difficulties in maintaining standards as required by AFR 35-10. f. Substandard duty performance (20 Jan 82 - 31 May 92). The Board requested applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (see Exhibit F). However, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01602

    Original file (BC-2007-01602.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01602 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 214 and his application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04967

    Original file (BC-2011-04967.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01665

    Original file (BC-2009-01665.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    To date, no response to this request has been received. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jul 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01166

    Original file (BC-2006-01166.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Nov 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of staff sergeant. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. A complete copy of the Air Force...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00096

    Original file (FD2003-00096.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ISSUES A93.09 INDEX NUMBER : EXHIBITS SUBMITTED, 10, THE BOARD A67,90 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN ad Vn TYPE PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW COUNSEL] NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL [YES | No | x VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY xX x xX xX x LETTER OF NOTIFICATION CASE NUMBER BRIEF OF PERSONNEL...