Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00369
Original file (BC-2012-00369.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00369 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded 
to honorable. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  had  no  understanding  about  the  effects  of  alcohol.    He  was 
discharged  without  being  provided  any  type  of  intervention  or 
determination  regarding  his  problem.    He  was  and  still  is  an 
alcoholic.  He served his country with honor and would like his 
discharge upgraded for medical reasons. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 26 Aug 81, 
for a period of four years.   
 
On  12  Oct  84,  the  squadron  commander  notified  the  applicant  of 
administrative  discharge  action  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct.  
The  specific  reasons  for  the  proposed  action  were:  1)  on  or 
about (o/a) 15 Oct 83, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
being drunk on station and communicating a threat; 2) o/a 12 Jul 
84, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for making a profane 
statement  using  profane  language  and  failing  to  produce  his  ID 
card  when  requested  and  willful  attempt  to  damage  government 
property; 3) o/a 5 Sep 84, he appeared before civil court for a 
charge of driving under the influence (DUI).  For this offense, 
he was ordered into 36 months summary probation, ordered to pay 
a fine of $663.00 and an administrative fee of $30.00 to be paid 
in increments of $50.00 a month.  Also, to serve 20 hours with 
the  county  adult  work  program  and  to  observe  good  conduct/obey 
all  laws/have  no  similar  offenses,  not  drive  unless  legally 
licensed and insured/not drive within six hours of consuming an 
alcoholic  beverage,  and  to  enroll  within  five  days  in    DUI 
school and complete the school within 90 days. 
 

After  consulting  with  counsel,  he  submitted  statements  in  his 
own  behalf.    The  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  case  file 
legally  sufficient  to  support  separation  and  recommended  a 
general  discharge,  without  probation  and  rehabilitation  (P&R).  
The discharge authority approved the general discharge, without 
P&R. 
 
On  6  Nov  84,  the  applicant  was  discharged  under  the  provisions 
of  AFM 39-10,  by  reason  of  misconduct  –  pattern  discreditable 
involvement with military and civilian authorities, with service 
characterized  as  general  (under  honorable  conditions).    He  was 
credited  with  3 years,  2  months,  and  11  days  of  active  duty 
service.   
 
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,  was  within  the  discretion  of  the 
discharge  authority,  and  the  applicant  was  provided  full 
administrative  due  process  (see  AFDRB  Hearing  Record  at 
Exhibit B).   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  during  the  discharge  process.    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  his  discharge  on  the  basis  of 
clemency;  however,  considering  his  overall  record  of  service, 
the seriousness of the offenses which led to his administrative 
separation,  the  earlier  decision  of  the  AFDRB,  and  the  lack  of 
post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade 
of  the  characterization  of  his  discharge  is  warranted.  
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  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-00369  in  Executive  Session  on  2  August  2012, 
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. 
 
 
 
 
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 

 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0180

    Original file (FD2002-0180.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Attachment Examiner's Brief FD2002-0180 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD _ (Former AB) (HGH AMN) 1. * @4/36/2002 18:37 30167759868 DET2 336TRS PAGE 65 PpAce2- 2/30 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE | AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND (A Dec of FROM: DET 2, 336 TRS/CC SUBJECT: Notification Memorandum 1. (Atch 1, Appendix A w/atch) iii, On 27 Oct 01, you were derelict in your duties by failing to refrain from departing the boundaries of Fort Meade,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03144

    Original file (BC 2013 03144.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03144 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 28 Dec 84, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. While the applicant argues he was not properly diagnosed with PTSD while on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05603

    Original file (BC 2013 05603.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Before recommending discharge the commander noted he reviewed the applicant’s records. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service information we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted on that basis. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03270

    Original file (BC-2006-03270.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 10 Oct 84, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge. On 19 Aug 82, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01000

    Original file (BC-2005-01000.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Oct 01, applicant received a letter of counseling for failing to do CQ inventory. On 31 Oct 02, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03507

    Original file (BC-2003-03507.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable. They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence that the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03234

    Original file (BC-2008-03234.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Jun 84, the board agreed with the findings and recommendations of the applicant’s commander. 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 E. Letter, Applicant, not dated.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00155

    Original file (BC-2012-00155.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00155 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflect he was separated for a medical condition existing prior to service. On 12 Nov 2009, following his discharge from the Air Force, he obtained copies of his medical records...

  • 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001323

    Original file (0001323.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01323 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be upgraded. In support of his request applicant has provided a letter from AFPC/DPPRRB, dated 24 Mar 00, announcing the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) decision to...