Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04476
Original file (BC-2012-04476.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04476

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to help him find suitable employment.  
His discharge characterization has hurt him in finding work 
suitable for his many talents.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
3 January 1985.  

On 24 August 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander 
that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force 
under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-47, conduct 
prejudicial to good order and discipline, substantiated by the 
applicant’s frequent involvement in behavior that was 
inconsistent with acceptable Air Force standards as evidenced by 
administrative punishments he received for specific incidents of 
failure to go, operating a vehicle while drinking, conflicting 
statement regarding alcohol, failure to attend alcoholics’ 
anonymous (AA) meeting, notice of preliminary revocation of 
driving privileges, alcohol abuse evaluation, and being drunk on 
station.  

On 24 August 1985, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and was advised of his right to 
consult counsel, submit statements for consideration or waive 
either of these rights. On 26 August 1985 the applicant opted to 
consult counsel but waived his right to submit statements on his 
behalf.  

Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the 
discharge authority approved the separation and directed the 
applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable 
conditions) characterization of service without probation and 
rehabilitation.  The applicant was released from active duty on 
28 August 1985 and was credited with 7 months, and 26 days of 
active duty service.  

On 2 April 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to 
submit comments regarding his post service activities, 
(Exhibit C).  To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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.  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, 
there was no evidence submitted to compel us 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 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 27 June 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-04476:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 20 September 2012, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR dated 2 April 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04159

    Original file (BC-2012-04159.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04159 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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)...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04246

    Original file (BC-2012-04246.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04246 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent, his right to legal counsel, to present his case before an administrative discharge board and to submit statements on his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03609

    Original file (BC-2012-03609.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 May 1983, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force. 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. 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-02036

    Original file (BC-2012-02036.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02036 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 4 Jan 1989, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). In the interest of justice, we considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04486

    Original file (BC-2012-04486.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04486 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 November 1984, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 4 years, 8 months, and 13 days of total active service. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03695

    Original file (BC-2012-03695.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03695 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 23 August 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable and change his narrative reason for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03779

    Original file (BC-2012-03779.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03779 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. In the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05448

    Original file (BC 2012 05448.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For a full list of the offenses, please see the commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge on the basis of clemency; however, in view of the applicant’s overall record of service, the numerous infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on that basis. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05395

    Original file (BC 2012 05395.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 August 2013.

  • 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.