RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00714

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of 
service be upgraded to Honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The type of discharge he received was not a fair representation 
of his service.  He gave 4 years and 7 months of honorable 
service to his country and his discharge should reflect the 
same.  During a very stressful period in his life he was faced 
with problems that unfortunately resulted in his discharge from 
the military.  Even though this was a very difficult period for 
him, the military did not offer any counseling to assist him in 
coping with the issues he faced.  Since he had to leave the 
military, he accepted the discharge handed to him and was 
informed by his superiors that, in time, he would be able to 
upgrade to an honorable characterization of service.  He is 
making his request now.  

In support of his request the applicant provided a personal 
statement.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  According to documents extracted from his military personnel 
record the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 
November 1982.  He served as an Aircraft Fuel Mechanic and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of Senior Airman, E-4.  

2.  On 19 June 1987, the applicant’s commander notified him that 
he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of 
Air Force Regulation 39-10, Discharge-Expiration of Enlistment 
or Required Service and General Provisions, paragraph 5-46.  The 
specific reason for the discharge recommendation was minor 
disciplinary infractions that were inconsistent with acceptable 
Air Force standards evidenced by administrative actions received 
for numerous incidences of financial irresponsibility, failure 
to maintain housing standards, failures to report to duty on 
time, child neglect, failure to report for mobility duty, 
assault, breach of peace, disobeying order, delinquent NCO club 
account, and assignment cancellation due to financial 
difficulties.  

3.  On 19 June 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and was advised of his right to 
consult counsel and submit statements for consideration. He 
opted to consult counsel but declined to submit a statement in 
his behalf, however, On 29 June 1987, he submitted a statement, 
in his behalf, to his commander.  

4.  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.  The applicant was 
released from active duty on 22 July 1987 and was credited with 
4 years, 7 months, and 24 days of active duty service.  

5.  On 10 October 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity 
to submit comments regarding his post service activities 
(Exhibit C).  

6.  In further support of his appeal the applicant provides an 
expanded statement of the events leading up to his discharge and 
the advice he received as well as several character reference 
letters.  The applicant states he made mistakes and accepts full 
responsibility for his part in the occurrences.  He has 
graduated from mortuary college and has received a certificate 
in funeral directing and an Associates in Applied Science Degree 
in Funeral Directing.  He is a licensed, state of Texas, funeral 
director/embalmer and is the manager of a Funeral Home.  He 
served honorably and is an honorable man.  He wants his family 
to look at that discharge and know that he was not drafted but 
chose to serve and although he made mistakes he overcame them.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

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 during the discharge process.  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, or unduly harsh.  In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based 
on clemency; however, while the evidence provided indicates that 
the applicant has made a successful post-service adjustment, and 
notwithstanding his otherwise good service record, in view of 
the seriousness of the offenses committed during the period of 
service under review, we are not persuaded that the 
characterization of his discharge should be upgraded based on 
clemency.  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 3 December 2012, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
      		, Member
		, Member

________________________________________________________________

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-00714:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 29 January 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR dated 10 October 2013, w/atch.