RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03599
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions (UHC)) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The punishment of receiving a UHC discharge is inequitable
because it was based on incidents that happened in a one-year
period and does not reflect his performance during his 11 years
of service.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 2 Aug 83.
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47a, for a pattern of
misconduct. For the specific reasons, see attachment one to the
Discharge Notification letter at Exhibit B.
The applicant received punishment under the provisions Article 15
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); for:
a. Violating Article 92: Being derelict in the performance of
his duties by willfully deviating from his direct route to
Wenigerath Weapons Storage Area where he was to deliver box
lunches.
b. Violating Article 91: Disobeying a lawful order to remain
on telephone standby and notify the weekend supervisor of his
whereabouts.
c. Violating Article 86: Failing to go at the time prescribed
to his appointed place of duty.
d. Violating Article 113: Falling asleep at his post, which was
the Entry Control Point.
On 2 Sep 86, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification and waived his right to appear before an
administrative discharge board, to be represented by military
counsel and to submit statements on his behalf, contingent upon
his receipt of no less than a general discharge. After a legal
review, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally
sufficient and recommended the discharge authority accept the
conditional waiver. The discharge authority accepted the
conditional waiver and approved the applicant general discharge.
The applicant received a general (UHC) discharge on 25 Sep 86
after serving 3 years, 1 month, and 24 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
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 his service was contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or
disproportionate to the offenses committed. Moreover, the
applicant received the characterization of service that he
requested in his conditional waiver. Despite this, in the
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based
on clemency; however, the applicant has provided no evidence
concerning his post-service accomplishments 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2012-03599 in Executive Session on 25 Apr 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03618
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03618 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Jul 85, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. Exhibit C....
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00383
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF:DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00383 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ____________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicants General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for misconduct was consistent with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02180
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 01761
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01761 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 16 Aug 89, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03866
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03866 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 22 Sep 86, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to report at the prescribed time to a military doctor and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03253
On 10 Sep 1996, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). On 17 May 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request for a discharge upgrade. 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-2012-05564
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05564 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions (UHC)) discharge be upgraded to 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00053
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-00246
The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged and be given a general discharge and that his request for an upgrade to honorable be considered due to his excellent on duty work record. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04934
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04934 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 2 Dec 80, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct Drug Abuse Board Waiver with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class. Should the applicant provide evidence pertaining...