Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00845
Original file (BC-2012-00845.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00845 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
honorable. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He does not feel he deserves the character of discharge he was 
given.  While in the service he was given very little training if 
any and was never counseled regarding his performance. 
 
In  support  of  the  applicant’s  request,  he  submits  a  personal 
statement  and  documents  extracted  from  his  military  personnel 
records. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 September 
1961. 
 
The  applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to 
recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions 
of AFR 39-16.  The specific reasons follow: 
 
    a. The applicant had knowledge of a lawful order not to park 
or stop a vehicle within 50 feet from an aircraft, an order which 
it was his duty to obey, he did fail to obey on 18 February 1963.  
For this misconduct he received punishment under the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice, Article 15. 
 
    b. On 19 April 1963, the applicant failed to repair to his 
place of duty.  For this misconduct he received a summary court-
martial. 
 
 

 
 

He  was  advised  of  his  rights  in  this  matter.    The  discharge 
authority  concurred  with  the  recommendation  and  directed  a 
general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.    The  applicant 
was discharged on 24 May 1963.  He served 1 year and 8 months on 
active duty. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  (FBI),  Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  was  unable  to 
identify  with  an  arrest  record  on  the  basis  of  information 
furnished. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

 

2 
 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00845 in Executive Session on 20 September 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00845 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 February 2012, w/atch. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 
 
 
 
 
 

 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03100

    Original file (BC-2012-03100.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03100 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect he served in Vietnam and Laos. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission and the available evidence of record in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00845

    Original file (BC 2014 00845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The applicant contends that the RE code “3A” is for members who separate before completing 36 months service. 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 of injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00845

    Original file (BC-2010-00845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available records reflect the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 19 May 66 and was honorably discharged on 9 Feb 70. The complete HQ AFPC/DPAPP 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 17 Sep 10 for review and comment within 30...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02921

    Original file (BC 2014 02921.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02921 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we find the evidence presented is not sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03700

    Original file (BC 2012 03700.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Moreover, there has been no showing that he had an unfitting medical condition that would have required his processing through the Military Disability Evaluation System – a prerequisite to a medical discharge. 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 B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01161

    Original file (BC 2009 01161.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01161 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge because of his hardship deferment. The applicant was discharged effective 6 December 1963 with an UOTHC discharge. Exhibit C....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02344

    Original file (BC-2010-02344.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 November 1964, an appointed Evaluation Officer (EO) recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-16 with a general discharge. On 12 November 1964, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00845

    Original file (BC-2008-00845.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00845 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Air Force from 19 Jul 76 to 18 Apr 82,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00326

    Original file (BC-2013-00326.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his discharge to general (under honorable conditions). On 23 Sep 1975, the applicant submitted a request to the AFDRB for an upgrade to his discharge. On 15 Dec 1975, the applicant was notified that the AFDRB considered his application and concluded the character of his discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).