Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00246
Original file (BC-2012-00246.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00246 
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  young  and  immature  when  he  was  discharged  and  he  has 
since developed and  matured. 
 
He was not aware he could request a discharge upgrade until he 
spoke with a Veterans Service Officer. 
 
In support of his request he provides copies of his DD Form 214, 
Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty;  and  VA 
Forms 21-4108, Statements in Support of Claim. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 3 Aug 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 
On 6 Jun 1980, 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  his  frequent  involvement  of  a 
discreditable  nature  with  military  authorities.    This  is 
documented by: 
 
 
Assault. 
 
 
Stealing. 
 
 
Possession of Marijuana. 
 

Article  15,  24  Apr  1979,  Violation  of  Article  128,  UCMJ, 

Article  15,  10  Jan  1980,  Violation  of  Article  121,  UCMJ, 

Article  15,  14  May  1980,  Violation  of  Article  134,  UCMJ, 

 

 

 

On 6 Jun 1980 and 9 Jun 1980, the applicant acknowledged receipt 
of the discharge notification. 
 
On  19  Jun  1980,  he  was  interviewed  by  the  appointed  evaluation 
officer.    The  evaluation  officer  recommended  the  applicant  be 
discharged and be given a general discharge and that his request 
for  an  upgrade  to  honorable  be  considered  due  to  his  excellent 
on duty work record. 
 
On  24  Jun  1980,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  discharge 
legally sufficient. 
 
On 27 Jun 1980, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, 
with  a  service  characterized  as  general  (under  honorable 
conditions).  He served 1 year, 10 months and 25 days of total 
active service. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative 
report at Exhibit C.  
 
On  19  Jun  2012,  a  copy  of  the  FBI  Report  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As 
of this date, this office has received no response. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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. 
 

 

2 

 

________________________________________________________________ 
 
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. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
in Executive Session on 14 Aug 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 
 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00246: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 28 Feb 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jun 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00053

    Original file (BC-2012-00053.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Aug 81, the evaluation officer interviewed the applicant, reviewed his records and case file. On 24 Aug 81, the evaluation officer recommended the applicant be furnished and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00053 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01692

    Original file (BC-2012-01692.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Dec 87, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) considered a request from the applicant to upgrade his discharge to Honorable. Exhibit C. FBI Record. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 12.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03299

    Original file (BC 2014 03299.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 Jun 88, the separation authority approved the applicant’s unconditional waiver indicating he would be discharged in absentia at the earliest possible date. 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. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00744

    Original file (BC-2012-00744.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jun 2012.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02409

    Original file (BC-2011-02409.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02409 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03029

    Original file (BC-2012-03029.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03029 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01811

    Original file (BC-2009-01811.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s UOTHC discharge. 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. The following...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01588

    Original file (BC-2011-01588.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01588 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 30 Apr 71, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman first class. After thoroughly...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00272

    Original file (BC-2011-00272.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Aug 84, Headquarters Fifteenth Air Force approved the discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. At the same time, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05063

    Original file (BC-2011-05063.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 12, w/atch.