Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03797
Original file (BC-2012-03797.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03797 

 

 COUNSEL: NO 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He served honorably for over three years and performed his 
duties well. He is an honest citizen who works hard, pays his 
taxes, and deserves an honorable discharge. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 2 Nov 78. 

 

On 23 Nov 81, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for financial 
irresponsibility. The reasons for the action included the 
applicant’s four dishonored check notifications; Letter of 
Indebtedness; three Records of Counseling for financial 
irresponsibility; and two nonjudicial punishment (NJP) actions 
under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 
one for financial irresponsibility and the other for failure to 
go. 

 

On 23 Nov 81, he acknowledged receipt of the action and, on 
3 Dec 81, after consulting with legal counsel, he submitted a 
statement in his own behalf. 

 

On 10 Dec 81, the case was found to be legally sufficient and on 
18 Dec 81, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished a general discharge, without probation and 
rehabilitation. On 31 Dec 81, the applicant was furnished a 


general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited 
with 3 years, 1 month, and 29 days of total active service. 

 

On 19 Mar 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for comment within 30 days. As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit C). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 process. Based on the available 
evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge for financial irresponsibility 
was consistent with the substantive requirements of the 
discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary 
authority. He has provided no evidence which would lead us to 
believe the characterization of his service was improper or 
contrary to the provisions of the governing directive. In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on 
the basis of clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence 
related to his activities since leaving the service, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. In 
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the 
applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-03797 in Executive Session on 2 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Mar 13, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03192

    Original file (BC-2007-03192.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03192 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and the narrative reason for separation changed. DPSOS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03970

    Original file (BC-2002-03970.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Dec 82, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for financial irresponsibility and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to sergeant. In their view, the Tower Amendment was not applicable to the applicant because he was reduced in grade prior to completion of 20 years of active service. In order for the applicant to have been eligible for retirement pay recalculation under the Tower Amendment, he would have needed 20 years of active service at the time he held the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00755

    Original file (BC 2013 00755.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    An evaluation officer reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended she be discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge for an apathetic and defective attitude only after being considered for rehabilitation. On 27 Mar 81, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 1 year and 16 days of total active service. On 28 Apr 82, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade her...

  • 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01451

    Original file (BC 2014 01451.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01451 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. He has spent many years reflecting upon this. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01665

    Original file (BC-2009-01665.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    To date, no response to this request has been received. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jul 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03053

    Original file (BC-2007-03053.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 Aug 82, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable conditions discharge. The AFDRB reviewed all the evidence of record and concluded that there was no basis for upgrade of the discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03288

    Original file (BC-2003-03288.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03288 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge for unsatisfactory performance be changed to a medical discharge. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01322

    Original file (BC 2014 01322.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01322 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 discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02926

    Original file (BC-2007-02926.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 Jan 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 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. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend the relief sought on...