Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03978
Original file (BC 2013 03978.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03978

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and immature.  He regrets he was not able to 
complete his term of service.  His disciplinary problems were 
never malicious, just childish and stupid.  The 21 months he 
served fulfilled the requirement to be eligible for benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 Feb 82, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 24 Oct 83, the applicant’s was notified by his commander of 
his intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  
The reasons for the action included failure to go at time 
prescribed to appointed place of duty, sleeping on duty, room 
inspection failure, writing checks on insufficient funds, and 
vacation of suspended punishment, all in violation of various 
articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for 
which he received letters of counseling (LOC), a letter of 
reprimand (LOR), and nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under 
Article 15 of the UCMJ. 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his 
rights to submit a statement in his own behalf.



On 7 Nov 83, the case was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a 
general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 29 Nov 83, the applicant was so discharged and was credited 
with 1 year, 9 months, and 21 days total active service.

On 1 May 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.

________________________________________________________________

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 was 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, 
in the absence of any evidence for us to consider in determining 
whether or not the applicant’s activities since leaving the 
service are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he 
was discharged, we are not inclined 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 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-2013-03978 in Executive Session on 1 Jul 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 May 14, w/atch.




                                   Panel Chair




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03978

    Original file (BC-2007-03978.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03978 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The rank reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect senior airman (SrA) (E-4) versus airman first class (A1C) (E-3). The applicant’s complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01440

    Original file (BC-2013-01440.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01440 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for misconduct—drug abuse be upgraded to Honorable. The reason for the Article 15 was the applicant did, on diverse occasions between 1 Apr 79 and 1 Apr 80, wrongfully use marijuana. In the interest...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03144

    Original file (BC 2013 03144.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03144 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 28 Dec 84, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. While the applicant argues he was not properly diagnosed with PTSD while on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03367

    Original file (BC 2013 03367.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 Feb 83, 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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 02949 2

    Original file (BC 2009 02949 2.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Nov 14, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant with an opportunity to submit information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 14, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01764

    Original file (BC-2013-01764.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01764 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general discharge. Applicant's Master Personnel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03246

    Original file (BC 2013 03246.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2012-02198

    Original file (BC-2012-02198.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02198 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 25 Nov 83, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class. On 2 Jul 84, the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03250

    Original file (BC 2014 03250.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 May 83, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an UOTHC discharge. 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 activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service warrant such an action. Available Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Sep 14, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05063

    Original file (BC-2011-05063.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 12, w/atch.