RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01814 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  separation  code  of  “JKM”  which  denotes  “Misconduct  – 
Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline” be changed. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
His separation code is affecting his ability to find employment.  
He  was  informed  that  after  six  months  from  his  discharge  his 
separation code would be automatically upgraded.   
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  his 
DD Form 214. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 6 Jun 84, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  
 
On  1  Apr  88,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s 
intent  to  recommend  that  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force 
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for Misconduct, specifically, 
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.  The applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge,  consulted 
with  counsel  and  waived  his  right  to  submit  a  statement  on  his 
own behalf.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were: 
 
  1)  He  received  two  Article  15s,  Uniform  Code  of  Military 
Justice;  one  for  unlawfully  striking  a  British  civilian  in  the 
face  and  about  the  body  and  one  for  failure  to  go  to  his 
appointed place of duty.  
 
  2)  He  received  four  letters  of  reprimand;  two  for  failure  to 
go; one for failure to properly execute his assigned duties, and 
one for assault.   
 
  3) He received three records of counseling; one for failure to 
maintain his dormitory room in a satisfactory manner and two for 
failure to go to his appointed place of duty. 

  

 

  

the 

applicant 

was 

with 

discharged 

 
On  4  May  98,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  reviewed  the  case 
and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to  support  the  discharge  and 
recommended  that  he  receive  a  general  (under  honorable 
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.   
 
On 9 May 88, the discharge authority approved his discharge.  On 
16 May 88, 
service 
characterized  as  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  in  the 
grade  of  airman  first  class.    He  served  3  years,  11  months  and 
11 days of total active service.  
 
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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial.    DPSOS  states  there  is  no 
automatic upgrade of service characterization due to the passage 
of  time  and  each  request  for  upgrade  is  decided  by  the  evidence 
presented and the individual merits of the case. 
 
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.  
 
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  states  that  had  he  known  his  records  would  have 
been  so  tarnished,  he  would  not  have  signed  many  of  the  forms 
that  ended  up  discrediting  him.    He  did  not  have  any  problems 
prior  to  arriving  to  RAF  Mildenhall  and  Shaw  Air  Force  Base, 
South  Carolina.    His  enlisted  performance  reports  were 
exceptional.   
 
The applicant states that in accordance with Casey v. U.S. 8 CL. 
Ct 234 he was denied due process of law. 
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

  
2 

 

  

 
2.  The  application  was  timely  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  agree  with  the  opinion  and  recommendation 
of  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt 
their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the 
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  
While the applicant contends he was denied due process; based on 
the evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s discharge was 
in  compliance  with  the  governing  instruction  and  that  he  was 
afforded  all  due  process  rights.    Therefore,  we  conclude  that 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of  proof  that  he 
has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2012-01814  in  Executive  Session  on  20  Dec  12,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 

  

  

3 

 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

  

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 May 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 Jun 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Jun 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.  

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01814 was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  
  

 
 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  
4