RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03367
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded
to Honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
It has been 31 years since his discharge. His supervisor set
him up for failure in part because he was at the center of an
incident between his supervisor and the assistant fire chief.
He has no evidence to substantiate his position; however, the
assistant fire chief was aware of the situation. He planned to
stay in the Air Force and, to this day, he encourages others to
pursue this as a career option.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 26 Jun 80.
On 1 Feb 83, the applicants commander notified him of his
intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct-Pattern of
Minor Disciplinary Infractions under the provisions of AFR 39-
10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reasons for the
action included four failures to go, being involved with another
military members wife, and poor job performance. For these
infractions, the applicant received non-judicial punishment
under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), three letters of
counseling, and one letter of reprimand.
On 3 Feb 83, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to
submit a statement on his behalf.
On 4 Feb 83, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the
discharge authority approved the commanders recommendation,
directing the applicants administrative discharge without
probation and rehabilitation.
On 18 Feb 83, the applicant was furnished an General (Under
Honorable Conditions) discharge for Misconduct-Pattern of Minor
Disciplinary Infractions and was credited with 2 years,
7 months, and 23 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, the applicant provides an expanded statement
describing his experiences subsequent to his discharge. He is a
husband and father of eight years. Additionally, he was an
excellent employee during each of his employment stents as
evidenced by his rapid promotion to managerial positions at most
of his places of employment. Unfortunately, he is now disabled
and is no longer able to work. He reiterates that if his
request is granted, his discharge will accurately reflect his
service performance and continued support of the Air Force,
military, and its goals and mission. In support of his
response, he provides copies of three character references and
an FBI arrest record report (Exhibits D and E).
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. Therefore, in view of the above, we
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicants case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
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-2013-03367 in Executive Session on 31 Jul 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence 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, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. FBI Report.
1
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03367
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03367 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04967
Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicants General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for misconduct was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discharge authoritys discretion. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03246
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03246 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 5 Apr 83, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). In the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01750
In 1983, he was discharged as an Air Force Fire Fighter. On 7 Jul 83, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman. We have considered the applicant’s overall record of service, and the events which precipitated the discharge, and his post service information; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00683
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00683 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 9 Mar 84, he was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge and credited with 18 years, 1 month, and 16 days of total active service. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00091
DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting a change to his RE code, character of service, or narrative reason for separation The complete DPPRS evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00865
The applicant was discharged on 12 Oct 84. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 10, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00041
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 21 Nov 85, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge without opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. Kendrick., Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00041: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 07, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03185
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03185 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. It has been 27 years since his discharge and not a day goes by that he does not think about how his time in the service would have been different had he been more mature,...