AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00592
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His behavior and actions were not appropriate; however, he
requests his discharge be upgraded based on clemency in order to
regain some self-pride, honor and integrity.
The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his
appeal.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
served on active duty as a Law Enforcement Specialist from
21 June 1973 to 7 November 1974. On 18 April 1974, the applicant
was found guilty on two specifications of being absent from his
organization; and, on 10 May 1974, he was found guilty of
stealing United States currency of a value of $80, the property
of another airman. The applicant’s military record indicates he
was Absent without Leave (AWOL) on three occasions for civil
confinement, one occasion for desertion, and one occasion for
pre-trial confinement.
On 10 October 1974, the applicant was notified by his commander
that he was recommending the applicant for an undesirable
discharge under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12, Chapter
2, Section B, paragraph 2-15a, for a pattern of frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military
authorities. The commander cited the Article 15 and two court-
martial convictions the applicant received during the period of
18 January 1974 and 10 May 1974, in addition to several
incident/complaint reports and citations. The applicant
acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent and was afforded
the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.
appropriately
characterizes
characterization
On 25 October 1974, the discharge authority approved the
recommended separation and directed the applicant be discharged
with a UOTHC discharge without probation or rehabilitation. The
applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic (E-1)
effective 7 November 1974 after serving 1 year, 4 months, and
16 days on active duty
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant’s
service
the
misconduct for which he was court-martialed and subsequently
discharged. Based on the documentation on file in the master
personnel records, the discharge, to include his characterization
of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the
discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not
provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in
the discharge processing.
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 27 April 2012, 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 an error or an injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case
since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his
post-service activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no
2
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
________________________________________________________________
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-2012-00592 in Executive Session on 2 October 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00592:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 9 Apr 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Apr 12.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01546
On 29 May 86, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicants request to upgrade his discharge, but denied the request because the facts of record in his case did not warrant changing the type of discharge. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01755
On 28 August 1975, 25 July 1977 and 5 April 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded (Exhibit B). Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the applicants characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge Manuel and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. We took notice...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00579
On 8 Apr 80, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability, apathy and defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Apr 12, for review and comment within 30 days. Based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04270
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. On 26 March 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post-service activities (Exhibit E). In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency and considered the applicant's overall post-service activities and accomplishments; however, the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01497
On 2 Oct 89, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. He was discharged on 11 Oct 89. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00631
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00631 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect her characterization of discharge as general (under honorable conditions) rather than under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). On 12 December 2002,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02921
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02921 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated in the United States Air Force. A commander can determine if a members use of a substance was improper or wrongful based on the circumstances of the use. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01338
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01338 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and her rank be restored. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00479
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit F. HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant's request for a change of RE code. If the Board upgrades the applicant’s character of service to honorable his RE code would automatically change to 2C, which denotes "Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge." DPSOA will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2B, unless otherwise directed by the Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01814
On 13 Jul 01, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. DPSOS states that based on documentation on file in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,...