RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04128
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was unjust due to his Traumatic Brain Injury
(TBI). His personality and demeanor change was caused by his
TBI. Prior to his TBI he had a sterling record and only one
sick call visit. After his TBI, he had numerous sick call
visits about TBI related conditions including headaches, stress,
alcohol related incidents, and oversleeping, all compounded by
personal issues.
In support of his request the applicant provides a personal
statement discussing events that occurred after he entered the
Air Force, Standard Forms 600, Chronological Record of Medical
Care; DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty and
various other documents associated with his request.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 27 Apr 77, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
On 12 Apr 78, after a psychiatric evaluation, the Mental Health
Services diagnosed the applicant with Transient Situational
Disturbance, manifested by physically violent acts. It was
recommended he be given a further trial of duty; and, if after a
reasonable trial, he is unable to adjust, that action be taken
to separate him from the service under the appropriate
administrative regulation.
On 8 Mar 79, the applicant requested a Hardship Discharge in
accordance with (IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of
Airmen.
On 26 Mar 79, the applicant was notified that his request for a
Hardship Discharge was disapproved. The commander noted there
was no indication the applicant had made every reasonable
attempt to remedy his situation.
On 20 Apr 79, the 2849th Air Base Group commander (2849 ABG/CC)
disapproved the applicants request. The commander stated that
the applicant submitted a supplement to his original request for
a hardship discharge which also was disapproved. However, his
supplement contained no substantial information to support his
original application other than an emotional appeal.
By undated letter, the applicants squadron section commander
notified him of administrative discharge action for apathy and
defective attitude. For a full list of the offenses, please see
the commanders notification letter at Exhibit B.
On 11 May 79, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification On 5 Jun 79, after consulting with
counsel, he requested a conditional waiver of his entitlement to
an administrative discharge board hearing on the condition that
his discharge be characterized as general (under honorable
conditions).
On 6 Jun 79, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case file
legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer
of probation or rehabilitation.
On 12 Jun 79, the discharge authority approved the applicants
request for a conditional waiver. He was discharged with
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in
the grade of airman. He was credited with 2 years, 1 month and
16 days of active duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
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 the service 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 characterization of
applicants discharge based on clemency; however, after
considering his overall record of service, the numerous
infractions which led to his administrative separation and lack
of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an
upgrade is warranted. Should the applicant provide evidence
pertaining to his post-service activities, we would be willing
to reconsider his request. In view of the above and 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-2012-04128 in Executive Session on 30 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 16 Aug 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
2
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05120
Rule 5, Note 2, dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD and the date of the DECOR 6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02258
Exceptions to this policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed into military channels within the prescribed time limits and conclusive evidence that the decoration was not acted upon due to loss or inadvertence. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00106
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1K recommends denial. AFRC/A1K states after reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant he has failed to provide a completed AF IMT 348 with a recommendation and signature from the appointing authority; an AF IMT...
Director I/ Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01544 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (20LC), for the period 10 Jul 91 to 1 Jul 96, be considered in the promotion process for cycle 9737 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). DPPPWB states that there is no tangible evidence the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01984
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01984 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period ending 16 Nov 09 be removed from her records. At first it looked promising that her husband would transfer to McGhee-Tyson, TN, where she would be assigned as an instructor. In this...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00499
On 10 Jul 79, the Internal Medicine Clinic recommended the applicant be discharged for a medical condition that existed prior to entry into the service. In his request the applicant acknowledged that a medical board had determined that at the time of entry into military service he did not meet the minimum medical standards for enlistment into the Air Force. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00727
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00727 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) 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 occurred in the discharge processing. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading...
AFPC indicated that, to allow the decoration to be considered for AFBCMR 97-03 162 cycle 9736 because the original date was changed from a date after the 31 Dec 96 promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) to a date prior to the PECD would not be fair or equitable to other airmen who were not allowed to have the close out date of their decorations changed for promotion consideration. Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04434
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04434 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the request...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that although no documentation has been provided showing the reason for the delay in awarding the AAM, 2OLC, and no copy of the recommendation package was provided, the decoration was processed and awarded within the time limits required. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2)...