Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01724
Original file (BC 2013 01724.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01724

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his discharge upgraded to receive veterans’ 
benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Nov 86, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force (RegAF).

On 4 Jun 87, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct.  
The specific reasons for the action included one incidence of 
being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer, for which he 
received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice, and one incidence of being intoxicated 
on station.

On 9 Jun 87, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his rights to 
submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 11 Jun 87, the legal office reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished a 
general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority concurred with the findings and 
recommendation and directed the applicant’s discharge.  On 
15 Jun 87, the applicant was furnished a general discharge and 
was credited with seven months and two days of total active 
service.

The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board 
(DRB) to have his general discharge upgraded.  On 31 Dec 90, the 
AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s request for an 
upgrade of his discharge, concluding that it was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative 
due process.

On 17 Jan 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  In response, the applicant states he performed his 
duties to the best of his ability and tried to instill pride, 
self-dignity, and teamwork to his flight.  He drank out of 
boredom and loneliness.  Since his discharge he has worked for 
several companies and takes care of his mother.  He is currently 
trying to open an art gallery and assists others in his community 
whenever he can.  The applicant also provided a statement from 
his therapist which states he has been undergoing treatment with 
the Health Center for his Bipolar Disorder.

The applicant’s complete response, with an attachment, 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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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.  We considered upgrading the 
discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the 
evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting 
the relief sought on that basis.  Furthermore, while the 
applicant contends that he is seeking an upgrade of his 
discharge to honorable to qualify for benefits administered by 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), he should know that 
his general (under honorable conditions) discharge qualifies him 
for certain DVA benefits and should contact the DVA for 
clarification.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis 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-2013-01724 in Executive Session on 27 Feb 14 and 
4 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 13.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 14, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                                  Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01724

    Original file (BC-2012-01724.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01724 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) upgraded to honorable. On 11 Mar 88, the applicant was discharged with a reason for separation of request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial, with service characterized as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00280

    Original file (BC-2013-00280.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He should have been medically discharged. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not considered unfitting for military service at the time of release from military service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00280

    Original file (BC 2013 00280.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He should have been medically discharged. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not considered unfitting for military service at the time of release from military service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02196

    Original file (BC 2014 02196.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02196 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jan 15.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05845

    Original file (BC 2013 05845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05845 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, due to the applicant’s failure to provide information regarding his post-service activities, we cannot conclude that such...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00004

    Original file (BC 2013 00004.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. On 8 Jun 87, the discharge authority requested permission to execute the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force with the characterization of service of UOTHC while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00004

    Original file (BC-2013-00004.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. On 8 Jun 87, the discharge authority requested permission to execute the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force with the characterization of service of UOTHC while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05889

    Original file (BC 2013 05889.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Feb 02, applicant was informed that the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation(s) were forwarded to the applicant on 23 Jan 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). With regards to the applicant’s request to restore his ribbons and medals, we recommend no action be taken as no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04583

    Original file (BC 2013 04583.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Jun 88, the action was found to be legally sufficient and, on 20 Jun 88, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 23 Jun 88, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct – other serious offenses and was credited with 8 months and 25 days of total active service. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02779

    Original file (BC 2013 02779.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of the medical records provided did not reveal the applicant was diagnosed or experiencing any acute, chronic medical or mental health condition that was deemed unfitting while on active duty or at the time his separation from military service. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to...