Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00445
Original file (BC-2012-00445.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00445 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be 
upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He believes his discharge should be upgraded because of his age 
and lack of maturity at the time of discharge. 
 
In  support  of  the  applicant’s  appeal,  he  provides  copies  of 
certificates of achievement. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  22  August 
1989. 
 
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  reason  was  on  or  about 
20 April  1991,  the  applicant  wrongfully  abused  hashish  and 
methamphetamine.  For this misconduct he received an Article 15. 
 
He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting 
with  counsel,  the  applicant  submitted  a  conditional  waiver 
requesting a general discharge.  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.    The  applicant  was  discharged  with  a 
UOTHC  discharge  on  20  September  1991.    He  served  2  years  and 
29 days on active duty. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  (FBI),  Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  provided  an 
arrest record which is at Exhibit C. 
 
 

 
On 21 June 2012, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation and a 
request for information pertaining to his post-service activities 
was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  response  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.  Additionally, due to 
the lack of evidence of a successful post-service adjustment and 
in  view  of  the  information  contained  in  the  FBI  investigative 
report, 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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  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  this 
application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00445 in Executive Session on 24 July 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

2 
 

 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00445 was considered: 
 
  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 December 2011. 
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
  Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation. 
  Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 June 2012. 
 
 
 
 

 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01195

    Original file (BC-2012-01195.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01195 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. On 27 February 1989 the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. Additionally, due to the lack of evidence of a successful post- service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03886

    Original file (BC-2011-03886.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request the applicant submits a personal statement and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. In view of the forgoing findings the Board further concluded there was no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus, the applicant’s discharge should not be changed. Exhibit C. FBI Report Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 29 March 2012.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01724

    Original file (BC-2012-01724.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01724 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) upgraded to honorable. On 11 Mar 88, the applicant was discharged with a reason for separation of request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial, with service characterized as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00717

    Original file (BC-2012-00717.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00717 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES 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. On 20 May 1996, the commander directed the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01885

    Original file (BC-2011-01885.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 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, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00949

    Original file (BC-2010-00949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00949 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Furthermore, because of the lack of documentation concerning his activities since leaving the service, we are not inclined to recommend upgrading his discharge based on clemency at this time. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Nov 10.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02721

    Original file (BC 2010 02721.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02721 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 8 August 1991, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting a change in his discharge. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02693

    Original file (BC-2012-02693.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02693 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: __________________ _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 17 November 1964, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00529

    Original file (BC-2010-00529.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2010-00529 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ____________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. On 17 Mar 89, he acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04649

    Original file (BC-2011-04649.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered...