Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05729
Original file (BC 2013 05729.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05729

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His record be corrected to full honorable due to the fact that 
he was a very young age at the time of the incident.  Prior to 
his tour in Cuba, he was a bright airman with military career 
aspirations. He self-medicated with alcohol after what he 
witnessed in Cuba. He felt he was unjustly punished. He has been 
a productive citizen since.    

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
18 Jun 93.

On 15 Mar 96, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct:  conduct 
prejudicial to good order and discipline, under the provisions 
of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Section H, Paragraph 5.50.2.  The 
reasons for the action were one instance of failure to go at the 
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and one instance 
of failing to obey a lawful order to report to duty, for which 
he was twice punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).

On 29 Feb 96, the suspended portion of the nonjudicial 
punishment related to a reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) 
was vacated and the demotion action was executed.  The reasons 
for this action were the applicant disobeyed a lawful order by 
using his United States government American Express credit card 
for personal expenses, wrongful possession of an alcoholic 
beverage while under the age of twenty-one, and overindulged in 
intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitating him from the proper 
performance of his duties.  
On 29 Mar 96, the discharge case was found legally sufficient 
and the discharge authority approved the commander’s 
recommendation on 1 Apr 96, directing the applicant’s discharge.

On 3 Apr 96, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 
9 months, and 16 days of active service.   

On 15 Oct 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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, we do not find the evidence presented is 
sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service 
activities warrant such consideration.  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-2013-05729 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
	
	


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Oct 14.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01696

    Original file (BC 2014 01696 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01696 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 28 Jan 14, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to Honorable. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01747

    Original file (BC-2012-01747.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS did his job AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01747 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 Mar 96, the 39 WG/CC reviewed the case file and recommended the 16th Air Force commander (16 AF/CC) approve the applicant’s unconditional waiver...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03190

    Original file (BC 2014 03190.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03190 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was an excellent Airman and all Enlisted Performance Reports and Feedback Worksheets reflect that fact. The discharge authority approved the administrative discharge with a service characterization of General...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03035

    Original file (BC-2011-03035.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For these actions he received a LOR, which was placed in his UIF. On 2 Feb 12, a copy of the FBI report and a request for post- service information were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). While the applicant only references his civilian conviction for DUI as the basis for his discharge, it was but one of several issues which formed the basis for his administrative discharge for a pattern of misconduct, to include committing carnal knowledge with a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00682

    Original file (BC-2004-00682.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Feb 96, the staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge for failure in alcohol abuse treatment and recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01122

    Original file (BC-2008-01122.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01122 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 13 Jan 06, be declared void and expunged from his records, and his rank of staff sergeant be restored. On 26 Jun 06, the applicant's commander vacated the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03737

    Original file (BC-2006-03737.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, on, or about, 5 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander nonrecommended him for promotion based on his failure to pass the fitness test based on scoring in the marginal category and his involvement in an alcohol related incident at a civic event while attending ALS. That his squadron commander improperly nonrecommended him for promotion on 5 Jan 05 in violation of AFI 36-2502 (Substantiated). The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1993-02122A

    Original file (BC-1993-02122A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Sep 92, in a personal appearance, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge and a changed reason for separation. He did not realize until years after his discharge that he was an alcoholic, making it impossible for him to drink in “moderation” as the Air Force had advised. Complete copies of his submissions, with attachments, are provided at Exhibit F. On 19 May 05, the AFBCMR Staff invited the applicant to submit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03668

    Original file (BC 2013 03668.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03668 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Re-enlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. On 28 Mar 13, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03009

    Original file (BC-2010-03009.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes the incorrect date of “14 Feb 67,” in the advisory opinion, that was reflected as the date he entered active duty. We appreciate the applicant’s service to the Nation, but find he does not meet the requirement for award of the AFEM for support of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Exhibit B.