Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00592
Original file (BC-2012-00592.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01546

    Original file (BC-2013-01546.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 May 86, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC-2010-01755.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 August 1975, 25 July 1977 and 5 April 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC-2012-00579.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2012-04270.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC-2008-01497.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2011-00631.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2011-02921.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 member’s 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

    Original file (BC-2011-01338.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2012-00479.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2012-01814.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,...