Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05650
Original file (BC 2013 05650.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05650

 			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His apathy/defective attitude was a result of his alcohol 
consumption for which no counseling was offered.  He has been 
sober for 14 years and believes this record will hinder his future 
employment with a good company.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 April 1979.  
On 31 July 1980, he was notified of his commander’s intent to 
discharge him from the Air Force for a defective attitude and 
inability to expend constructive effort to conform to Air Force 
standards.  Specifically he received two Article 15s, one Letter 
of Reprimand and three Letters of Counseling.  

On 31 July 1980, the applicant was counselled by the area defense 
counsel as to his rights and privileges under AFM 39-12, 
Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request 
for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the 
Rehabilitation Program.  On 5 August 1980, an Evaluation Officer 
conducted an interview of the applicant and advised him of his 
commander’s intent to separate him and his right to submit 
statements on his behalf.

On 8 August 1980, the staff judge advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient.  On 15 August 1980, the commander directed the 
applicant be discharged and furnished with a general discharge 
certificate.  He was separated on 15 August 1980 with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge and his narrative reason 
for separation was listed as apathy – defective attitude. 

On 29 October 2014, 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 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 during the discharge process.  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, or unduly harsh.  In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicant’s 
discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we found the evidence 
submitted insufficient to recommend granting the request on that 
basis.  Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend 
granting the relief sought.

4.  The applicant’s 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-2013-05650 in Executive Session on 4 December 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05650 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 14.

						

 


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00165

    Original file (BC-2008-00165.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00165 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Record of Counseling (ROC) for, on or about 1 February 1979, failing to repair for a required Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04676

    Original file (BC-2011-04676.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04676 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation “Unsuitable-Apathy, Defective Attitude-Evaluation officer” be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During her time in technical school at Keesler Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02536

    Original file (BC 2013 02536.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02536 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from general, (under honorable conditions), to honorable. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04417

    Original file (BC-2012-04417.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04417 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01125

    Original file (BC-2003-01125.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evaluation officer recommended the applicant receive a general discharge and not be considered for rehabilitation. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02693

    Original file (BC-2012-02693.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02693 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: __________________ _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 17 November 1964, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00755

    Original file (BC 2013 00755.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    An evaluation officer reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended she be discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge for an apathetic and defective attitude only after being considered for rehabilitation. On 27 Mar 81, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 1 year and 16 days of total active service. On 28 Apr 82, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01156

    Original file (BC-2003-01156.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 August 1980, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge. - 6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended 15 May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for failure to go to appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04336

    Original file (BC 2013 04336.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04336 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge for unsuitability was consistent with the substantive...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00659

    Original file (BC-2012-00659.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00659 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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...