AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01955 
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: 
 
His  discharge  was  not  automatically  upgraded  as  promised.    He 
assumed  his  discharge  was  upgraded  until  he  requested  his 
records on 2 Nov 2011. 
 
His  current  discharge  reflects  “convenience  of  the  military” 
[sic]. 
 
The  record  will  not  show  any  judicially  enforceable  sanctions 
that support a general discharge. 
 
He  was  never  counseled  on  “substantial  prejudice  in  civilian 
life,” nor was he available to sign his DD Form 214, Certificate 
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement and a copy of his DD Form 214. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 15 Jul 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 
On  11  Dec  1987,  his  commander  notified  him  he  was  recommending 
he  be  discharged  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions.    The 
authority  for  this  action  was  AFR  39-10,  Administrative 
Separation  of  Airman.    The  specific  reasons  for  this  action 
were: 
 
From  on  or  about  Nov  1985  to  on  or  about  13  Jan  1986,  he 
 
failed  to  provide  his  technical  school  diploma  to  his 
supervisor.  For this offense he received a letter of counseling 
(LOC). 
 

 

 

 

2

On  or  about  5  Sep  1986,  he  failed  to  perform  quality 

On or about 16 Oct 1987, he failed to report to work.  For 

On  or  about  10  Sep  1986,  he  engaged  in  sub-standard 

 
On or about 15 Dec 1986, he removed bolts from the engine 
of an aircraft and left the area.  For this offense he received 
a LOC. 
 
 
maintenance.  For this offense he received a LOC. 
 
 
maintenance practices.  For this offense he received a LOC. 
 
 
this offense he received a LOC. 
 
 
On or about 4 Feb 1987 and 18 Feb 1987, he failed to show 
up  for  morning  roll  call.    For  each  of  these  offenses  he 
received a LOC. 
 
 
On  or  about  23  Feb  1987  and  on  3  Mar  1987,  he  failed  to 
maintain  his  uniform  and  hair  in  an  acceptable  military  image.  
For each of these offenses he received a LOC. 
 
 
On  or  about  20  Oct  1987,  he  requested  sick  leave  from  a 
noncommissioned  officer  (NCO),  which  was  denied,  whereupon  he 
requested  the  very  same  sick  leave  from  another  NCO,  which  was 
granted.    However,  he  never  told  the  NCO  who  granted  the  sick 
leave that it had previously been denied.  For this offense he 
received a LOC. 
 
 
to work.  For each of these offenses he received a LOC. 
 
 
On  or  about  23  Nov  1987,  he  was  walking  on  base  with  his 
hands  in  his  pocket  and  failed  to  salute  a  colonel.    For  this 
offense he receive a LOC. 
 
On  11  Dec  1987,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
discharge notification. 
 
On  16  Dec  1987,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  discharge 
legally  sufficient  and  the  discharge  authority  approved  his 
discharge. 
 
On 23 Dec 1987, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, 
with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.    His 
narrative reason for separation was “Misconduct-Pattern of Minor 
Disciplinary  Infractions.”  He  served  two  years,  five  months, 
and nine days of total active service. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  (FBI)  provided  a  copy  of  an  Investigative  Report 
(Exhibit C). 
 

On or about 18 Nov 1987 and 19 Nov 1987, he reported late 

 

2

On  18  Sep  2012,  a  copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D), as 
of this date, no response has been received by this office. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 5 Nov 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 
 
 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

4

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-01955: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 13 Jun 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, 18 Sep 2012, w/atch. 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

4