Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03340
Original file (BC 2013 03340.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03340

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It has been 24 years since his discharge.  At the time of his 
discharge, he was working through issues with his weight and 
still has challenges with his weight.  His service was honorable 
and he desires to have that reflected to afford him the 
opportunity to receive benefits and various discounts as a 
civilian for his service. 

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 24 Apr 87. 

On 13 Jan 89, the applicant’s commander notified him of his 
intent to recommend his discharge for unsatisfactory 
performance, specifically exceeding weight standards, under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  
The reasons for the action included failure to progress in the 
weight management program (WMP), for which he received a 
demotion to the grade of airman (E-2), letters of reprimand, and 
an unfavorable information file (UIF) with a control roster. 

On 23 Jan 89, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the action and submitted statements on 
his behalf requesting further explanation for the discharge 
(other than the fact the applicant had intentionally failed to 
progress in the WMP).  Additionally, the applicant’s counsel 
requested that his entire record be examined before making a 
decision to separate the applicant.
On 26 Jan 89, the case was found to be legally sufficient and 
the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, 
directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without 
probation and rehabilitation. 

On 2 Feb 89, the applicant was furnished a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge for unsatisfactory performance 
and was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of total 
active service. 

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the 
applicant on 26 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  
In response, he describes his experiences subsequent to his 
discharge.  He has been a father and husband for twenty years 
and completed educational programs with Cornell University and 
job related training for management.  Additionally, he has 
started his own business, became a Director of Operations at his 
local church, and is currently a site manager at a local storage 
facility.  In support of his response, he provides a character 
reference letter from his pastor and copies of fourteen 
supporting documents (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 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, we do not find the evidence presented is 
sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on 
that basis at this time.  In this respect, we note that 
Congress' intent in setting up the Veterans Benefits Program was 
to express thanks for Veterans' personal sacrifice, separations 
from family, facing hostile enemy action, and suffering 
financial hardship.  It would be unfair to all those who served 
honorably to extend those Veterans benefits to someone who 
committed acts of misconduct while on active duty.  For these 
reasons, this Board very carefully weighs requests to upgrade 
the character of a discharge and, in doing so, carefully 
considers whether the impact of an applicant's contributions to 
his or her community since leaving the service are substantial 
enough for us to conclude they overcome the misconduct which 
precipitated the discharge and whether or not an upgrade of the 
discharge would create a larger injustice to those who served 
under honorable conditions and earned the characterization of 
service the applicant seeks.  A key component of this 
determination is whether or not an applicant has a criminal 
record.  While the applicant has provided a number of supporting 
statements attesting to the positive impact of his efforts in 
the community, without an arrest record from the Federal Bureau 
of Investigations (FBI), we cannot conclusively determine if his 
activities since leaving the service outweigh the misconduct 
which precipitated his discharge.  Therefore, in view of the 
above, we are unable to recommend granting relief at this time.  
However, should the applicant provide an FBI report, we would be 
willing to reconsider his request based on new evidence.  
Therefore, in view of the above, 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-2013-03340 in Executive Session on 31 Jul 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03340 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Mar 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, undated.

						

1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03898

    Original file (BC 2013 03898.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Sep 86, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a General discharge. On 7 Oct 86, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Separation of Exceeding Air Force Weight Standards, and was credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days of active service. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jun 14.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01255

    Original file (BC-2011-01255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 June 1988, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman basic. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9702580

    Original file (9702580.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On or about 22 Nov 85, he failed to progress satisfactorily in the Air Force WMP by gaining 10 pounds instead of losing the 5 pounds required. On 30 Jan 89, the commander, Air Refueling Wing, , received the proposed demotion case against the applicant and agreed with the applicant’s commander that demotion action was appropriate, effective 30 Jan 89. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00306

    Original file (BC-2007-00306.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00306 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 JUN 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. f. On 6 August 1981, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), for being delinquent to the NCO...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01902

    Original file (BC 2014 01902.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01902 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 17 Jun 88, the discharge was found to be legally sufficient. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01215

    Original file (BC 2014 01215.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01215 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s records be corrected to show that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge was upgraded to honorable. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his 6 December 1999...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03431

    Original file (BC-2002-03431.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A Report of Individual Counseling dated 6 Nov 87 indicated the applicant had been advised he was being considered for discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. On 8 Feb 88, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS provide their rationale for recommend denial.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04054

    Original file (BC 2013 04054.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04054 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry code of 4J (entered into Phase I of the Air Force Weight Program, or the unit commander has declared the airman ineligible to reenlist for a period of Phase II or probation) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01149

    Original file (BC-2003-01149.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 March 2001, the applicant's commander recommended he be discharged for Failure in the WBFMP. For this failure, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 21 August 2000. c. On 8 November 2000, the applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in Phase 1 of the WBFMP in that he failed to lose the required five pounds or one percent body fat since his previous weight check on 10 October 2000. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Nov 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02372

    Original file (BC-2011-02372.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02372 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 Nov 89, the applicant was discharged and received a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...