RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02255
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was exonerated by a judge from Washington.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 Sep 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
for a period of four years.
On 11 Aug 1986, her commander notified her that he was
recommending she be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reasons
for his action are reflected in the Notification Memorandum at
Exhibit B.
On 11 Aug 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification and on 20 Aug 1986 she submitted matters
for his consideration.
On 21 Aug 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge
legally sufficient.
On 10 Sep 1986, she was discharged from the Air Force with a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative
reason for separation is Misconduct Patterns of Minor
Disciplinary Infractions. She served a total of 2 years,
11 months and 28 days of active service.
On 6 Jan 2014, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit C).
________________________________________________________________
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. While the applicant
states she was exonerated by a judge in Washington, she has not
provided any evidence to show what was exonerated or how it
pertains to her request for an upgrade to her discharge. 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 based
on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is
sufficient to compel us to recommend granting additional 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 in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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 20 Feb 2014, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-02255:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 2013.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Jan 2014, w/atch.
Panel Chair
2
2
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00503
In further support of his request, the applicant also provides a statement from his wife who asserts that he has more integrity than anyone she knows. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03189
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03189 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 3 Aug 2004, the applicant conditionally waived her right to an administrative discharge board hearing provided the separation authority characterized her discharge no less...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03253
On 10 Sep 1996, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). On 17 May 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request for a discharge upgrade. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01757
On 23 Oct 1987, he was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. __________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00110
The overseas long tour ribbon was omitted based on incorrect Foreign Service time on her DD Form 214. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIPV states that the applicants DD Form 214 reflects an incorrect Date Entered Active Duty (Item 12a) and will be corrected to read 12 Aug 77. However, both the DD Form 214 and DD Form 215, Correction to the DD Form 214, reflects the applicants full service time.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05140
On 18 Mar 1987, he was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 4 Jan 1989, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. On 24 Mar 1989, the applicant was notified that the AFDRB considered his application and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02255
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02255 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 5 Jul 57, the applicants commander recommended the applicant undergo an administrative discharge board under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-17 for a determination of fitness for...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05093
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05093 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) status. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05388
Had she known she would have been eligible for DVA benefits after two years of service, she would have held out for four more days to qualify. On 9 May 1984, she submitted her application for early separation due to pregnancy with a requested separation date of 15 Sep 1984. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05334
The documentation on file in the master personnel records supports the basis for discharge to include her character of service and narrative reason for separation. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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...