Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04524
Original file (BC 2013 04524.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04524


		COUNSEL:  NONE


		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It has been 25 years since his discharge and he was under the 
impression that it would be upgraded to give him the opportunity 
for Federal employment.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
29 Nov 85.

On 6 Dec 88, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.  
The reasons for the action included substandard performance of 
duty, tardiness, lackluster attitude/behavior toward customers, 
failure to meet dress and appearance standards, two incidences 
of failure to go, for which he received verbal counseling, a 
letter of counseling (LOC), a letter of reprimand (LOR), and 
non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which included a suspended 
reduction to the grade of airman (E-2).

On 6 Dec 88, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and of his right to consult with legal counsel and submit 
statements on his own behalf.

On 12 Dec 88, the action was found to be legally sufficient and 
the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s 
recommendation and directed the applicant’s general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.

On 15 Dec 88, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 3 years 
and 17 days of total active service.
On 1 Jun 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of 
his discharge.  The AFDRB concluded that the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process.

On 26 Jun 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 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 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 are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the 
misconduct for which he was discharged.  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-2013-04524 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Ms., Panel Chair 
	Mr., Member
	Mr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Jun 14.

						







1


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00326

    Original file (BC-2013-00326.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his discharge to general (under honorable conditions). On 23 Sep 1975, the applicant submitted a request to the AFDRB for an upgrade to his discharge. On 15 Dec 1975, the applicant was notified that the AFDRB considered his application and concluded the character of his discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).

  • 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 | CY2009 | BC 2009 01168

    Original file (BC 2009 01168.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. On 10 Sep 90, the applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01168

    Original file (BC-2009-01168.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. On 10 Sep 90, the applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01508

    Original file (BC-2013-01508.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Dec 88, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct – Drug Abuse with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman. On 14 Oct 93, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s appeal for upgrade of her discharge to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03914

    Original file (BC 2014 03914.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. On 23 Jun 87, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 6 different occasions. On 3 Dec 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for separation, indicating the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations and was within the sound...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00456

    Original file (BC-2012-00456.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS a general discharge without AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00456 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. If treatment for alcohol and narcotics were available at the time of his active duty service, he would probably still be actively serving in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02600

    Original file (BC-2009-02600.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of this application, the applicant submits copies of his APRs. He was discharged on 21 Jun 88; he served 5 years, 9 months and 11 days on active duty. On 2 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied a similar request by the applicant.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00457

    Original file (BC 2014 00457.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00457 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05357

    Original file (BC 2013 05357.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05357 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM) and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect such. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his deployment during the period 5 Jun 04 to 23 Aug 04 in support of Operation Iraq Freedom (OIF), where he...