Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00659
Original file (BC 2013 00659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
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.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would have made the Air Force a career if he was given a 
different job and his trainer would have taken his job more 
seriously.  After basic military training (BMT), he went 
straight to his duty station for on-the-job training (OJT) 
instead of technical school and was never given a chance to 
receive his 3-skill level.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jun 71.

On 20 Sep 72, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Conditions for 
Unsuitability.  The specific reasons for the action were apathy, 
defective attitudes, or inability to expend effort 
constructively.  Additionally, it was noted that the applicant 
received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disrespectful in 
language to a superior non-commissioned officer and a Letter of 
Reprimand for failure to repair.  He was provided counseling on 
numerous occasions for substandard duty performance and he twice 
failed his Aptitude and Knowledge Test (AKT).  

On 20 Sep 72, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and on 22 Sep 72, he waived his right to submit statements in 
his own behalf. 
On 25 Sep 72, the case was found legally sufficient and, on 28 
Sep 72, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished a general discharge. 

On 2 Oct 72, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with one year, 
four months, and one day of total active service. 

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 C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the 
service characterization, was appropriately administered and 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant 
acted in a manner inconsistent with Air Force standards of good 
order and discipline by demonstrating an extreme lack of 
integrity.  Because of the applicant’s apathy, defective 
attitude, inability to expend effort constructively, and limited 
potential for successful completion of further service, the Air 
Force had little to gain in retaining him.  Additionally, the 
applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been more 
than 30 years since the applicant’s discharge and he has not 
provided any justification as to why the alleged error or 
injustice was not addressed within three years from the date of 
his discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Apr 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of this case; however, we find no evidence or an error or 
injustice that occurred in the discharge process.  It appears 
the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time 
and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  No evidence 
has been presented to indicate otherwise.  Considered alone, we 
conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and 
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the 
existing circumstances.  Consideration of this Board, however, 
is not limited to the events which precipitated the discharge.  
In this respect, it may base its decision on matters of equity 
and clemency rather than simply on whether rules and regulations 
which existed at the time were followed.  While the Board may 
consider upgrading the applicant’s discharge under this broader 
mandate, the applicant has provided no documentary evidence for 
our review to determine whether or not his contributions to his 
community since his service could cause us to conclude that his 
post-service accomplishments are sufficient to overcome the 
misconduct for which he was discharged.  However, should the 
applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service 
transition, including supporting statements from friends, 
colleagues, and community leaders, we would reconsider the 
applicant’s request based on new evidence.  However, in the 
absence of such evidence, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.  

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-00659 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		                , Panel Chair
		                , Member
		                , Member





The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00659 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Mar 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13.




                                  
                                   Panel Chair

4



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00659

    Original file (BC-2013-00659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04909

    Original file (BC-2012-04909.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, character of service reflect an honorable discharge rather than general (under honorable conditions). His DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge Certificate, reflect a discharge date of 20 September 1973 rather than 29 October 1972. An evaluation officer reviewed the case and recommended the applicant be discharged with service characterized as general.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00579

    Original file (BC-2012-00579.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 Apr 80, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability, apathy and defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Apr 12, for review and comment within 30 days. Based on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202759

    Original file (0202759.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His one Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period closing 29 Sep 72 has an overall rating of 6. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 17 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01381

    Original file (BC-2004-01381.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Dec 72, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged without P&R, and that he be issued a DD Form 257AF, General Discharge Certificate. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 May 04. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05650

    Original file (BC 2013 05650.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05650 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we found the evidence submitted insufficient to recommend granting the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04002

    Original file (BC-2003-04002.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 7 December 1964 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (apathy and defective attitude) and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. While reviewing the applicant’s records, it was discovered that there was an error on his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States, Report of Transfer or Discharge, effective 7 December 1964. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05675

    Original file (BC 2013 05675.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81. On 29 Jul 82, an evaluation officer reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended he be discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge for a progressive downward trend in his attitude and duty performance. On 24 Dec 85, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and reenlistment code, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00282

    Original file (BC-2007-00282.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander advised applicant that military counsel had been obtained to assist him and a record of the consultation will be made by military counsel and placed in the case file The commander stated in the recommendation for discharge that he was recommending the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPR recommends the request for the PH be denied. After thoroughly...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012256

    Original file (20080012256.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 August 1981, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated a Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing his three instances of nonjudicial punishment and extensive history of counseling. This form further shows he completed 4 years and 9 months of creditable active military service. XXX _________________________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...