RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03832
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told that after some time had passed he could request an
upgrade. He needs help because he is unemployed, with no
insurance, and facing possible foreclosure on his home.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants DD Form 214, reflects that he commenced his
enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 31 Aug 83.
On 5 Apr 84, the applicants commander notified him that he was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct
numerous involvements with military and civil authorities. The
reasons for the action included wrongful possession of marijuana
and theft of government property, three notifications of returned
checks, for which he received non-judicial punishment under
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); poor
attitude, lack of effort at work, improper handling of controlled
items; for which he received two records of counseling; and two
traffic violations for speeding and operating a defective vehicle
and a civil court conviction for reckless driving, for which his
base driving privileges were revoked
On 6 Apr 84, he acknowledged receipt of the notification for
discharge, consulted legal counsel and waived his right to submit
a statement in his own behalf.
On 13 Apr 84, the case was found to be legally sufficient, and
the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a
general discharge.
On 19 Apr 84, the applicant was so discharged and was credited
with 4 years, 7 months, and 19 days of active service.
On 12 Oct 12, a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty was issued
to correct the following:
Block 12a to read 1979 Aug 31 rather than 1983 Aug 31.
Block 12c to read 04 07 19 rather than 00 07 19.
Block 12d to read 00 00 00 rather than 04 00 00.
On 19 Feb 13, a request for post-service information was sent to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).
In response, the applicant has provided copies of four character
references.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an 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 and narrative reason
for separation 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 applicants discharge on the basis of clemency. While the
applicant has provided some statements concerning his character,
we find these statements insufficient to conclude that his post-
service accomplishments are sufficient to overcome the misconduct
for which he was discharged. Should he provide statements from
employers, local law enforcement or an investigative report from
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), attesting to his
conduct since his discharge, we would be willing to review the
materials for possible reconsideration based on new evidence.
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 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-2012-03832 in Executive Session on 11 Apr 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Feb 13, w/atch.
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02257
Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Aug 04 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01781
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2004-01781 INDEX CODE 131.00, 105.01, 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank of senior airman (SRA) be restored so that he may continue his military career, having completed the Return to Duty Program (RTDP). He successfully completed the program in Jan 03 and was returned to duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02819
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02819 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Feb 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629
The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01562
His Article 15 be removed from his record. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03938
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Defense Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS) has her last name listed as “XXX” vice “XXXX.” DFAS has her middle initial as “H” vice “M.” Her date of separation should be “1 Feb 00” vice “29 Apr 98.” She never received a new copy of her DD Form 214 when she was removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03658
The applicant’s performance reports are provided at Exhibit B. Available records pertaining to the applicant’s medical issues are at Exhibit B, and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides medical details in his advisory at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s service records revealed no reference to participation in combat or events similar to those described by the...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0386
{| CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2002-0386 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, a change in the Reason and Authority for the discharge, and to the RE Code. Under Air Force regulations if the separation authority does not | accept a conditional waiver of the discharge board, he can either return the case to the installation to be heard by a discharge board or can request and unconditional waiver of the board. In this...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03305
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPO provides an informational advisory without a recommendation, advising the applicant was considered but not selected by the CY93B major board. A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO provides a technical advisory confirming the applicant’s DOR to captain was...