RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

did 

his 

job 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01747 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be 
upgraded to honorable.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. His  discharge  was  unjust  and  stems  from  a  former  security 
forces first sergeant who wanted to make a name for himself. 
 
2. His  Airman  Performance  Reports  (APRs)  and  “Experience 
Performance  Reports”  are  outstanding.    He  was  selected  for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  (E-5)  but  was  never 
allowed to put it on.  He had mandatory appointments for stress 
management and mental health.  
 
3. His  first  sergeant  continuously  stressed  that  the  applicant 
had  a  problem  with  alcohol  based  on  one  offense.    Along  with 
judicial  punishment,  he  was  reprimanded  for  missing  an 
appointment and failing two weight management weigh-ins and for 
being late for work. 
 
4. In  Feb  08,  he  was  diagnosed  with  Post  Traumatic  Stress 
Disorder (PTSD) due to his combat-related duty and personal life 
challenges.   
 
5. He 
and 
professionalism.    He  did  what  was  asked  of  him  to  the  best  of 
his  ability,  was  wrongly  accused,  and  ultimately  forced  out  of 
the Air Force. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  copies  of  character  reference  letters  and  a 
memorandum from his doctor.  
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 29 Jun 89, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  

integrity, 

knowledge, 

with 

reprimand 

(LOR) 

information 

unfavorable 

 
On 8 May 95, the applicant was denied the award of the Air Force 
Good  Conduct  Medal  (AFGCM)  for  the  period  29  Jun  89  through 
24 Nov 95.   
 
On  15  May  95,  the  applicant  drove  a  passenger  vehicle  while 
drunk.  For this misconduct, he received an Article 15, Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  suspended  reduction  to  the 
grade  of  airman  first  class,  forfeiture  of  $250  pay  per  month 
for two months and 30 days extra duty.   
 
On  21  Sep  95,  the  applicant  was  286  days  late  paying  his 
American  Express  credit  card  bill  and  failed  to  appear  for  a 
mandatory  weigh-in.    For  this  misconduct,  he  received  a  letter 
of 
and 
file 
(UIF)/control roster action. 
 
On 5 Oct 95, the applicant failed to go to roll call.  For this 
misconduct, he received an individual counseling. 
 
On 9 Jan 96, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place 
of duty.  For this misconduct, he received a second Article 15, 
UCMJ,  restriction  to  Incirlik  Air  Base,  Turkey  for  21  days, 
7 days extra duty and a reprimand.   
 
On  14  Feb  96,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s 
intent  to  recommend  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  under 
the  provisions  of  AFPD  36-32,  Military  Retirements  and 
Separations  and  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of 
Airmen.   The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification 
of discharge.   
 
On  21  Feb  96,  the  applicant  after  consulting  with  counsel 
requested  a  conditional  waiver  of  his  entitlement  to  an 
administrative  discharge  board  on  the  condition  that  his 
discharge be characterized as honorable.   
 
On 29 Feb 96, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the case 
and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to  support  separation  and 
recommended  that  the  39th  Wing  commander  (39  WG/CC)  reject  the 
applicant’s  request  for  a  conditional  waiver  and  to  notify  him 
that he had the option to either submit an unconditional waiver 
or request a board hearing.   
 
On 12 Mar 96, the 39 WG/CC rejected the applicant’s request for 
a  conditional  waiver  and  notified  him  of  his  options  to  either 
submit an unconditional waiver or request a board hearing.   
 
On  18  Mar  96,  the  applicant  submitted  an  unconditional  waiver 
request.    On  19  Mar  96,  the  628  Air  Mobility  Support  Squadron 
commander  (628  AMSS/CC)  reviewed  the  applicant’s  unconditional 
waiver  request  and  recommended  it  be  accepted  and  forwarded  to 
the  General  Courts  Martial  (GCM)  convening  authority  with  a 
recommendation to separate the applicant from the Air Force with 

a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.    The  SJA 
reviewed the case file and forwarded it to the 39 WG/CC with a 
recommendation  to  forward  the  case  to  the  GCM  convening 
authority to accept the applicant’s request for an unconditional 
waiver with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
 
On  26  Mar  96,  the  39  WG/CC  reviewed  the  case  file  and 
recommended the 16th Air Force commander (16 AF/CC) approve the 
applicant’s unconditional waiver with a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge. 
 
The  16  AF/SJA  reviewed  the  case  file  and  found  it  legally 
sufficient  to  support  separation.    However,  he  disagreed  with 
the  39  WG/CC  recommendation  to  discharge  the  applicant  with  a 
general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  and  recommended 
the  16  AF/CC  discharge  the  applicant  with  an  under  other  than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  
 
On  20  Apr  96,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  service 
characterized  as  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  in  the 
grade  of  senior  airman.    He  served  six  years,  9  months  and 
27 days of total active service.  
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigations (FBI) Clarksburg, WV, states they were unable to 
identify  an  arrest  record  on  the  basis  of  the  information 
furnished (Exhibit C).  
 
On  17  Jul  12,  the  applicant  was  offered  an  opportunity  to 
provide  information  pertaining  to  his  activities  since  leaving 
the service (Exhibit D).   
 
In  response  to  the  request  the  applicant  provided  a  personal 
letter and character reference letters.  The applicant states he 
worked  at  Bridgestone  Tire  Company  from  2002  to  2008.    After 
9/11,  he  traveled  to  New  York  with  the  Floresville  Volunteer 
Fire  Department  to  help  remove  rubble  and  operate  heavy 
equipment.  He has done volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.    After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no evidence 
to  indicate  that  his  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  was 
inappropriate, or that the actions taken to affect his discharge 
and the characterization of his service were improper, contrary 
to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the 
time,  or  based  on  factors  other  than  his  own  behavior  and 
inability  to  comply  with  standards.    In  addition,  we  find 
insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation  that  the 
discharge  be  upgraded  on  the  basis  of  clemency.    We  have 
considered  the  applicant’s  overall  record  of  service,  and  the 
events  which  precipitated  the  discharge,  and  his  post  service 
information;  however,  we  do  not  find  the  evidence  presented  is 
sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought 
on  that  basis.    Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application. 
 
4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore,  the  request  for  a  hearing  is  not  favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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-2012-01747  in  Executive  Session  on  29  Nov  12,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

  
 

 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Response, dated 26 Jun 12.  
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 Jul 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01747 was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair