RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05291
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During the contested time period he was young and immature. He
believes he was a victim of base closings and personnel
reductions. Because of his general discharge, he has been
turned away for job opportunities.
In support of the applicants appeal, he provides a copy of his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 January
1989.
The 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. The specific reasons are as follows:
a. On or about 29 June 1989, the applicant was derelict in
the performance of his duties. He failed to properly maintain
his dormitory room according to inspection standards.
b. The applicant did between on or about 27 June 1989 and
3 July 1989, disobey AFR 35-10, by coming to work in a wrinkled
and soiled uniform.
c. The applicant did from on or about 11 July 1989 to
14 July 1989, disobey an order by not getting his hair cut.
d. The applicant did from on or about 10 August 1989 to on
or about 12 August 1989, disobey an order by not getting his
hair cut. For this misconduct the applicant received a Letter
of Reprimand (LOR).
e. The applicant did on or about 24 August 1989 absent
himself from his unit and did remain absent until 25 August
1989. For this misconduct the applicant received a LOR.
f. The applicant did on or about 26 August 1989 fail to go
to his appointed place of duty. For this misconduct the
applicant received a LOR.
g. The applicant did on or about 5 September 1989 make a
false statement with the intent to deceive. For this misconduct
the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.
h. The applicant did on or about 5 September 1989,
unlawfully alter a public record. For this misconduct the
applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.
i. The applicant did from on or about 12 September 1989 to
26 September 1989, fail to meet standards in Correctional
Custody.
He was advised of his rights in this matter. 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 the
applicant be discharged. The applicant was discharged on 13
October 1989 with a general discharge. He served 8 months and
24 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. 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. 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, or unduly harsh. In the interest
of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on
clemency; however, in the absence of evidence by the applicant
attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years
since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency at
this time. However, the Board is willing to reconsider the
applicants request and have included an Information Bulletin to
assist the applicant in submitting a future request.
________________________________________________________________
_
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-2012-05291 in Executive Session on 13 August 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 October 2012, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00120
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00120 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He served 5 years, 5 months and 27 days on active duty and credited with 2 years, 9 months and 4 days of foreign service. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04304
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. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an UOTHC discharge. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 April 2013.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00372
He is requesting this upgrade in order to receive medical benefits. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 February 1987 in the grade of airman basic. His punishment consisted of the Article 15 Vacation Action dated 13 July 1989 - he was reduced to the grade of airman.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04569
On 13 July 1989, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 2 March 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments in response to the FBI Report and about his post service activities (Exhibit D). Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00445
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00445 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2007-00004
* CHANGE RE CODE + CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20162-7Mt Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-20o7-0oOU4 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00365
The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: a. Enlisted as AB 8 Jun 92 for 4 yrs. As a result, you received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 24 Jan 94.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01105 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman (E-21, which was the grade he held at the time of discharge. Applicant alleges that the discharge authority discharged him prematurely before completion of an investigation of three Inspector General (IG) complaints he filed and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01835
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01835 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant was discharged on 16 May 1990. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 December 2013.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02790
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...