RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05156
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge should have been upgraded to show completion of a
two-year tour so that he is eligible for Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) benefits; (housing, grants, disabilities etc
).
He was released 22 days before completing the two years which
would have allowed him eligibility for these benefits.
He did not leave the military of his own free will. He was
discharged due to alcohol abuse which was diagnosed in 1986. He
began drinking due to the loss of his aunt who was the one who
cared for him before entering the military. While in the
military, he began to have problems with his spouse which led to
more drinking.
He was young and had no idea how this would affect his future.
Being released 22 days shy of completing his tour so that he
could be eligible in the future seems deliberate and unjust. He
only asks that all reasonable doubt be applied and
reconsideration be given to upgrade his discharge.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 4 Apr 85, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for
a period of four years.
On 17 Feb 87, the squadron commander notified the applicant of
administrative discharge action for a pattern of misconduct,
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. For a full
list of the offenses, please see the commanders notification
letter at Exhibit B. After consulting with counsel, the
applicant submitted statements in his own behalf. The staff
judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and
recommended the applicant receive a general discharge. On
5 Mar 87, the discharge authority approved the general
discharge.
On 6 Mar 87, the applicant was discharged with service
characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He was
credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 3 days of active duty
service.
Other relevant facts pertaining to this application are at
Exhibit B. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts
in this Record of Proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
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 note the
applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge; however, it
appears that he would like to be credited with two years of
active duty service. Based on the available evidence of record,
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. Considering the applicants overall record of
service and the numerous infractions which led to his
administrative separation, we are not persuaded that a change to
the record is warranted. In addition, we found no evidence of
wrongdoing on the part of the Air Force by separating the
applicant short of reaching a 2-year threshold to qualify for
DVA benefits. 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 material 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-2012-05156 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Acting Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02061
On 27 Oct 87, the case was found legally sufficient and, on 4 Nov 87, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged. 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 4 Aug 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00586
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which confirms the applicant’s admitted two DUI incidents and is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01724
On 4 Jun 87, the applicants commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) to have his general discharge upgraded. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05633
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05633 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Evaluation Officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and be considered for probation and rehabilitation. In the interest of justice, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04907
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04907 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Other relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are at Exhibit B. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02774
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02774 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husbands records be corrected to remove his bad conduct discharge (BCD). Furthermore, it appears that on 30 Jul 96 the former members mother was provided a written response to her letter from SAF/LLI which explained both the relief...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-1986-01455; BC-1996-00399
His records be corrected to reflect he was retired for physical disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or major depression, rather than discharged for a personality disorder. Dr. A provides a separate opinion in the applicant’s case, concluding the applicant does not have a personality disorder, and never had a personality disorder. In fact, contrary to the circumstances in the noted case, Counsel has argued that the applicant’s service over the course of the years...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01253
He requests his discharge be reviewed for upgrade due to this evidence not being considered during his Air Force service. On 30 May 1977, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s service characterization from a bad conduct discharge to general (under honorable conditions). While they were unable to review the record of trial, the applicant alleges no error or injustice in the processing of the special court-martial.
AF | BCMR | CY1986 | BC 1986 01455; BC 1996 00399
Dr. A provides a separate opinion in the applicants case, concluding the applicant does not have a personality disorder, and never had a personality disorder. In fact, contrary to the circumstances in the noted case, Counsel has argued that the applicants service over the course of the years between his service in Vietnam and his adjustment disorder diagnosis was impeccable and has presented no evidence to indicate there were similar circumstances at play in the applicants case. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-1986-01455; BC-1996-00399
Dr. A provides a separate opinion in the applicants case, concluding the applicant does not have a personality disorder, and never had a personality disorder. In fact, contrary to the circumstances in the noted case, Counsel has argued that the applicants service over the course of the years between his service in Vietnam and his adjustment disorder diagnosis was impeccable and has presented no evidence to indicate there were similar circumstances at play in the applicants case. ...