RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01160 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
    
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded 
to honorable. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Many years ago he became eligible for this status change and did 
not  take  advantage  of  it  at  that  time.    This  eligibility  came 
about  through  an  act  of  congress  or  possibly  by  presidential 
decree. 
 
He  has  no  health  insurance.    A  particular  insurance  company 
application requires that he has an honorable discharge. 
 
In support of his request the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active 
Duty. 
 
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 27 Nov 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 
On  19  Apr  1972,  his  commander  notified  him  that  he  was 
recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, 
Separation 
Misconduct, 
Resignation,  or  Request  for  Discharge  for  the  Good  of  the 
Service  and  Procedures  for  the  Rehabilitation  Program.    The 
specific  reason  for  this  action  was  he  was  diagnosed  with  a 
character and behavior disorder best described as an emotionally 
unstable personality. 
 
On  20  Apr  1972,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
discharge notification. 
 
On  10  May  1972,  the  applicant  provided  a  statement  to  the 
appointed evaluation officer asserting the military has no part 
in his life and had he realized this he would never have joined 

for 

Unsuitability, 

Unfitness, 

 

 

 

the  military.    He  also  stated  he  would  refuse  probation  and 
rehabilitation if it were offered. 
 
On 15 May 1972, the appointed evaluation officer recommended the 
applicant  be  discharged  and  given  a  general  discharge  without 
probation and rehabilitation. 
 
On 22 May 2012, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12. 
 
On 24 May 1972, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, 
with  a  service  characterized  as  general  (under  honorable 
conditions).    He  served  1  year,  5  months  and  28  days  of  total 
active service. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
investigation,  Washington,  D.C.,  indicated  on  the  basis  of  the 
data  furnished  they  were  unable  to  locate  an  arrest  record 
(Exhibit C). 
 
On  9  Aug  2012,  a  request  for  post-service  information  was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). 
 
At  20  years  of  age,  he  had  the  audacity  to  show  his  emotions 
imprudently and perhaps thoughtlessly. In short, the misbehavior 
that led to his discharge from the Air Force represented a last 
resort that stemmed from what felt like a deep compromise to his 
personal beliefs and values. 
 
Although his expression of such values was incompatible with the 
military way of life, he has in fact, lived his life in strong 
adherence  to  honorable  principles  aimed  at  making  a  positive 
contribution  to  the  world  in  which  he  lives.    In  the  40  years 
since his discharge, he has shown a more commendable side to his 
character.    After  his  discharge  from  the  military,  he  used  the 
GI Bill to attain an associate’s degree in Agronomy.  During the 
time he was attending Agriculture College he lived a portion of 
one  of  his  summers  on  a  Methodist  Mission  research  farm  in 
northern  Costa  Rica  where  he  developed  gardening  techniques  in 
the  tropics.    After  graduating  from  Agriculture  College  he 
worked  in  farming,  viticulture  and  apiculture.    He  was  also 
employed  at  a  small  winery  in  Upstate  New  York  where  he 
performed all tasks from vineyard work and processing the grape 
juice  into  wine,  including  all  laboratory  work  necessary  for 
producing  wine,  the  tasks  of  bottling,  labeling  and  delivering 
the product, bookkeeping, and even leading winery tours. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

 

2

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 compel us 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 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  this  application 
in Executive Session on 25 Sep 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 

 

 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-01160: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 2012, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 16 Jul 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 2012, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 
 

 

4