Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02948
Original file (BC-2012-02948.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02948 

COUNSEL: NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general discharge from the Air National Guard be upgraded tohonorable. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

His discharge is unjust because he was unaware of the derogatorystatus and comments placed on his NGB 22, Report of Separationand Record of Service. His service characterization does not 
properly reflect his character. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On 16 Mar 95, the applicant enlisted in the Georgia Air NationalGuard (GAANG). 

On 7 Mar 98, the squadron commander notified the applicant ofadministrative discharge action for minor disciplinaryinfractions. The applicant received non-judicial punishment forfailing to report for urinalysis testing and for being absentfrom his unit. 

On 30 Apr 98, the applicant was discharged from the GAANG and asa Reserve of the Air Force by reason of misconduct – minordisciplinary infractions, with service characterized as general(under honorable conditions). He was credited with 3 years, 
1 month, and 15 days of active service. 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an 
investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. 

On 10 Dec 12, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the 
applicant for comment. At that time, he was also invited to 


provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities sinceleaving the service (Exhibit D). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided byexisting law or regulations. 
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in theinterest 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 ofthe case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injusticethat occurred during the discharge process. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge wasconsistent 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 tobelieve the characterization of the service was contrary to theprovisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. Considering hisoverall record of service, the FBI Report of Investigation andthe lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuadedthat an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge iswarranted. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting therelief sought. 
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has notbeen shown that a personal appearance with or without counselwill materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorablyconsidered. 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did notdemonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; thatthe application was denied without a personal appearance; andthat the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not consideredwith this application. 

2 



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR DocketNumber BC-2012-02948 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 13, underthe provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Dec 12, w/atchs. 


Acting Panel Chair 

3 




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03051

    Original file (BC-2011-03051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), requesting a discharge upgrade to honorable, and a change of the reason and authority for his discharge. Therefore, in the absence of such, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 11.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02180

    Original file (BC-2012-02180.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The specific reasons for this action were: On or about 1 Feb 1979, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). 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 2 on that basis. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 29 June 2012.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00970

    Original file (BC-2005-00970.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 Apr 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied his request that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded and that his felony conviction be erased from his civilian records.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01955

    Original file (BC-2012-01955.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He assumed his discharge was upgraded until he requested his records on 2 Nov 2011. 2 On or about 5 Sep 1986, he failed to perform quality On or about 16 Oct 1987, he failed to report to work. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01815

    Original file (BC-2012-01815.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01815 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 27 Apr 49, the board of officers convened and recommended the applicant be discharge with an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-01144A

    Original file (BC-1998-01144A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-01144 INDEX CODE 106.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his 1998 dishonorable discharge be upgraded to under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 8 Jul 96, the US Air Force Court of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01820

    Original file (BC-2012-01820.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01820 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03130

    Original file (BC-2011-03130.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged, on 22 Apr 96, by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Apr 12, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00785

    Original file (BC-2008-00785.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00785 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Apr 08.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02864

    Original file (BC-2009-02864.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-02864 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant was discharged on 3 Jun 81. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 09.