Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04304
Original file (BC-2012-04304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04304 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable or medical discharge. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has recently had some medical issues and tried to get help 
through the VA; however, because of his UOTHC he was denied 
assistance. 

 

While stationed at Kunsan Air Base he injured his knee playing 
ball for the base intramural team. He was sent to Japan for 
surgery and after rehabilitation he reinjured the same knee. 
Directly after returning to work he was offered two options; 
cross train into a different career field or be permanently 
separated under honorable/medical conditions. He opted for the 
medical discharge. He received an Article 15 for falsifying a 
document. He later received an Article 15 for disorderly 
conduct. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 May 1981. 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10 – Misconduct. The specific reasons follow: 

 

 a. On 12 February 1982, the applicant received a Letter of 
Counseling (LOC) for his involvement in an affray on or about 
10 February 1982. 

 

 b. On 19 November 1982, the applicant received a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. 

 


 c. On 30 March 1983, the applicant received non-judicial 
punishment under Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed 
place of duty. 

 

 d. On 13 May 1983, the applicant received a LOR for failing 
to go to his appointed place of duty. 

 

 e. On 6 October 1983, the applicant received non-judicial 
punishment under Article 15 for disorderly conduct in a public 
place and for making a false official statement. 

 

He was advised of his rights in the matter and after consulting 
with counsel the applicant elected to waive his right to a 
hearing before an administrative discharge board and to submit a 
statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, 
the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and 
recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with 
the recommendation and directed an UOTHC discharge. The 
applicant was discharged on 19 December 1983. He served 2 years, 
7 months on active duty and was credited with 2 years and 12 days 
foreign service. 

 

On 2 April 2013, a request for information pertaining to his 
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review 
and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this 
office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 discharge based on clemency; 
however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-04304 in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04304 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 September 2012, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 April 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02790

    Original file (BC-2011-02790.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02790 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. c. On 8 December 1982, the applicant failed to report to his place of duty at the prescribed time and was derelict in the performance of his duty. The applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02931

    Original file (BC-2007-02931.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 February 1983, applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47. For this offense he received an LOR on 2 December 1982. f. On or about 17 December 1982, he failed to report for duty. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 December 2007.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01104

    Original file (BC 2013 01104.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s last 5 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 1 Jun 2012 Exempt Exempt *24 May 12 66.00 Unsatisfactory *2 Mar 12 67.88 Unsatisfactory 5 Jan 10 75.35 Good 3 Dec 08 76.85 Good* Contested FA On 6 Dec 13, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), due to a lack of supporting documentation from the applicant’s primary care manager and commander. ________________________________________________________________ AIR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05675

    Original file (BC 2013 05675.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81. On 29 Jul 82, an evaluation officer reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended he be discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge for a progressive downward trend in his attitude and duty performance. On 24 Dec 85, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and reenlistment code, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04250

    Original file (BC-2012-04250.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As of this date, this office has received no response. 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. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 March 2013.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02935

    Original file (BC-2007-02935.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02935 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (Misconduct – Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline) be removed from his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02353

    Original file (BC 2013 02353.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In response, his commander withdrew the Article 15 and issued him an LOR. On 3 May 12, the applicant provided a rebuttal response to the LOR. The specific reason for the discharge action was the applicant provided a controlled substance (oxycodone) to another military member (his spouse).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01788

    Original file (BC-2013-01788.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01788 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 9 Jan 1981, his commander recommended the applicant’s request for separation be approved. On 9 Dec 2013, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to provide information...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01250

    Original file (BC-2012-01250.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 January 1982 the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service. The applicant was discharged from active duty in the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 28 January 1982 with an UOTHC discharge. 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04858

    Original file (BC 2013 04858.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 5 February 2002 to 4 October 2007. However, further evaluation by Mental Health personnel, subsequently ruled-out the applicant’s diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and indicated his symptoms supported a diagnosis of Personality Disorder. For an accounting of the...