RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01021
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his punishment he was not given any assistance to
save his career. He pursued help from his superiors, first
sergeant, command, and counsel to remove the problem; however,
he received no support.
He became very frustrated and disappointed and this started his
downward spiral of losing faith, morale, and confidence in his
military structure.
He did not use good judgment and said and did things that were
outside his normal behavior.
His military record prior to the incident reflects that of a
model airman.
He would like to clear his record and his discharge upgraded to
honorable based on the career he had prior to the incident.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a DD Form 293,
Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of
the United States, and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 Nov 83, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular
Air Force.
On 11 Sep 89, the applicant was notified by his squadron
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air
Force for a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good
order and discipline. The basis for the proposed action were:
1) On 15 Aug 89, his wife gave a statement to a Family Advocacy
Officer that she had been physically abused by the applicant
beginning shortly after they were married some five years
earlier; 2) On 30 Aug 89, he received an Article 15 for
unlawfully striking his wife on the arms, back and face with his
hands and fists, the punishment imposed was a reduction in grade
to airman first class; and 3) On 1 Sep 89, he received a Letter
of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to obey a lawful order given to
him by his commander to stay away from his spouse until the
situation at home was resolved.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, offered a
conditional waiver contingent upon receipt of no less than a
general discharge.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended that he receive
a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
On 22 Sep 89, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for
Misconduct-Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and
Discipline, and received a general discharge. He served on
active duty for a period of 5 years, 9 months and 28 days.
On 16 Oct 13, a request for information pertaining to his post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response
within 30 days (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. 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. In the interest of
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of
clemency; however, the applicant provides no evidence 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 Docket Number
BC-2013-01021 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 Oct 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01451
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01451 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. He has spent many years reflecting upon this. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01335
On 13 Sep 89, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged from the service for misconduct/conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and furnished a general discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter dated 28 Aug 05, applicant provided a brief summary of his accomplishments since his discharge (Exhibit G). Additionally, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00462
The XXX TAW commander testified that he was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant might have had, that the applicant had family and financial problems, and that while the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem, it was possible he did have an alcohol problem. He testified the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem. Diagnosis was probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer the applicant again to Social Actions and, if retained, to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05355
On 19 Sep 88, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 27 Aug 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Aug 14, w/atch.
On 5 Jul 84, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $50 a month for two months, and 30 days correctional custody but the execution of the portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman first class was suspended until 5 Jan 85. The reasons for the commander’s action were the incidents of misconduct for which he received the Article 15...
On 31 May 90, applicant was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $560 pay a month for two months, and 30 days’ correctional custody. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, also reviewed this application and indicated that this case has been reviewed and the discharge was consistent with...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02832
On 31 May 90, applicant was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $560 pay a month for two months, and 30 days’ correctional custody. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, also reviewed this application and indicated that this case has been reviewed and the discharge was consistent with...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03153 INDEX CODE: 126 COUNSEL: JULIE K. HASDORFF HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An Article 15, dated 22 Aug 96, an Article 15, dated 6 Sep 96, and, a Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 4 Nov 96, be set aside. The defense counsel claims that the legal office recommended to the commander...
Finally, if the applicant remains a senior airman, he may or may not be allowed to reenlist when his current enlistment expires. For example, under AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, paragraph 1.13, he may appeal any denial of reenlistment to the Secretary of the Air Force. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a three-page response (see Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05603
Before recommending discharge the commander noted he reviewed the applicants records. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service information we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted on that basis. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...