RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04417
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He feels his general discharge reflects poorly on his character
and it has hindered him in his career path. Since his
discharge, he has conducted himself in a manner consistent with
those men and women who have received an honorable discharge.
He has continued his education in the electrical career field
and is in the process of becoming a Master Electrician. He has
obtained both an Associates Degree and Bachelors Degree; and
is currently working on a Masters Degree.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 9 May 1980.
The applicant received one Letter of Counseling (LOC), two
Letters of Reprimand (LORs), and one Article 15 punishment
between 18 May 1981 and 20 November 1981. His offenses included
failing to discharge his financial responsibility, being
arrested for speeding (101 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour
zone), reporting late to duty, and wrongfully using marijuana
while in a military vehicle on duty.
On 31 December 1981, the applicant was notified of his
commanders intent to recommend him for a general discharge
under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-32,
Chapter 2, Section A, paragraph 2-4(c), for apathy and defective
attitude. The applicant acknowledged his commanders intent,
consulted counsel, waived his rights to submit statements in in
own behalf, and elected to submit an unconditional waiver to a
hearing before an administrative discharge board.
After the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally
sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommended
discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a general
discharge certificate.
The applicant was discharged from active duty in the grade of
airman (E-2) effective 4 May 1982 with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge. His DD Form 214, Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates his
narrative reason for separation as Unsuitability-Apathy,
Defective Attitude. He served 1 year, 8 months, and 26 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. The Board finds no impropriety in the characterization of
the applicants discharge. It appears that responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the
separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that
pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not
afforded all the rights to which he was entitled at the time of
discharge. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge
proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge
was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
4. Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the
events which precipitated the discharge. We have a
Congressional mandate which permits consideration of other
factors; e.g., applicants background, the overall quality of
service, and post-service activities and accomplishments.
Further, we may base our decision on matters of equity and
clemency rather than simply on whether rules and regulations
which existed at the time were followed. This is much broader
consideration than officials involved in the discharge were
permitted, and our decision in no way discredits the validity of
theirs.
5. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of
all the facts and circumstances of the applicants case, the
Board is persuaded that he has been a productive member of
society since leaving the service. In view of this, we believe
it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer the
adverse effects of the discharge he received 31 years ago.
Therefore, we believe an upgrade of the characterization of his
service to honorable is warranted on the basis of clemency.
6. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
________________________________________________________________
_
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 4 May
1982, he was discharged with service characterized as honorable
and was furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.
________________________________________________________________
_
The following members of the Board considered this application
in Executive Session on 27 June 2013, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-
04417 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00659
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00659 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00659
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00659 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit...
It appears that the responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, the majority of the Board is persuaded the applicant has been a productive member of society. Applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01726
On 7 and 23 June 1978, she failed to report for duty, for which she received two failures to repair letters. Upon the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board, on 24 June 1981, the Secretary of the Air Force approved her request to upgrade her RE code to RE-1. Although the applicant contends she should have been medically discharged, she provides no documentary evidence to support that she was unfit for continued military service at the time of her discharge from the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03053
On 9 July 1981, he failed to report at the scheduled time to his appointed place of duty, for which he was counseled on 9 July 1981. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 October 2005 for review and response within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04216
On 6 February 1997, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge characterization. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 June 11, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02746
The Discharge Authority approved his discharge and ordered a general discharge. Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018620
On 6 April 1983, and again on 3 May 1983, the applicants commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 6 May 1983, the applicants commander formally recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. On 21 June 1983, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02751
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02751 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C. On 14 Sep 10, a copy of the FBI report...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00826
Evaluation in the disability evaluation system should have followed where the most likely recommendation would have been unfit for duty. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...