Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02339
Original file (BC-2012-02339.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
 

 

 
 

 
 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02339 
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: 
 
At  the  time  of  his  discharge  he  had  problems  with  substance 
abuse.  This clouded his judgment and hampered his ability to be 
a successful airman. 
 
The applicant provides no supporting documentation. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 May 1989.  
On 12 March 1990, he was notified of his commander’s intent to 
discharge  him  from  the  Air  Force  for  misconduct:    minor 
disciplinary  infractions.  Specifically,  the  applicant  received 
two  Letters  of  Reprimand,  two  Letters  of  Counseling  and  three 
Memorandums  of  Record.    The  applicant  acknowledged  his 
commanders  intent,  his  right  to  consult  counsel  and  to  submit 
matters.  The applicant consulted counsel; however, he declined 
to  submit  a  statement  on  his  behalf.    On  16  March  1990,  the 
staff  judge  advocate  found  the  case  legally  sufficient.    The 
applicant  was  separated  with  a  general,  under  honorable 
conditions  discharge.    He  was  credited  with  10  months  and 
25 days of active duty service. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation,  Clarksburg,  West  Virginia  provided  a  copy  of  an 
investigation report (Exhibit C). 
 
On  24  October  2012,  the  FBI  investigation  and  a  request  for 
post-service  information  were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for 
response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office (Exhibit D). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

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  during  the  discharge  process.    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, or unduly harsh.  In the 
interest  of  justice,  we  considered  upgrading  the  applicant’s 
discharge  on  the  basis  of  clemency,  however,  there  was  no 
evidence  submitted  to  compel  us  to  recommend  granting  the 
request 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  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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2012-02339  in  Executive  Session  on  27  November  2012,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02339 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 12. 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 2

 
 

 
 

    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 
    Exhibit C.  FBI Investigative Report. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 Oct 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 3



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02339

    Original file (BC-2004-02339.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02339 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The daughter of the former member requests her father’s under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04881

    Original file (BC-2011-04881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04881 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 19 December 1989, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for irresponsibility in managing his personal finances. On 14...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02721

    Original file (BC 2010 02721.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02721 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 8 August 1991, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting a change in his discharge. ...

  • 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-2012-00717

    Original file (BC-2012-00717.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00717 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 20 May 1996, the commander directed the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02198

    Original file (BC-2012-02198.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02198 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 25 Nov 83, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class. On 2 Jul 84, the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04837

    Original file (BC-2011-04837.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04837 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00053

    Original file (BC-2012-00053.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Aug 81, the evaluation officer interviewed the applicant, reviewed his records and case file. On 24 Aug 81, the evaluation officer recommended the applicant be furnished and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00053 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04348

    Original file (BC-2011-04348.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 7 March 2012, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities and in response to the FBI Report (Exhibit D). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00222

    Original file (BC-2012-00222.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 Dec 1989, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his 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. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session...