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.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects
“Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude.”
There was no psychiatric evaluation conducted prior to his
discharge.
He had medical problems relating to his hearing, which is
service connected. He also had a leg injury prior to his
enlistment.
There is no clear reason for a general discharge.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 Nov 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
On 18 Dec 1979, his commander notified him he was recommending
he be discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation
for Unsuitability, Unfitness, Misconduct, Resignation, or
Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures
for the Rehabilitation Program. The specific reasons for his
action are reflected in the Notification Memorandum, dated
18 Dec 1979, at Exhibit B.
On 18 Dec 1979, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification.
On 16 Jan 1980, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge
legally sufficient.
On 22 Jan 1980, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force,
with service characterized as general. He served 1 year,
1 month and 23 days of total active service.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of
the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record
(Exhibit C).
On 17 Jan 2013, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D).
In further support of his request, the applicant provides a
personal statement, copies of several character letters, and his
employment history.
He entered the military as a security specialist and worked on
the flight line. However, due to his hearing problems he was
assigned to the armory. After an incident with another military
member, he was returned to the flight line. He was with another
airman who took a radio out of a maintenance van. He told him
to return it. Although he did not take the radio, he was
accused for the theft because of “guilt by association.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs has granted him service
connected disability for his hearing. He beseeches the Board to
upgrade his discharge to honorable for future employment
opportunities.
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit 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 error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission and post service
information 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
2
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 to compel us
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 in
this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that 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 this application
in Executive Session on 26 Feb 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00659:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 27 Mar 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Feb 2013, w/atchs.
Acting Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02180
The specific reasons for this action were: On or about 1 Feb 1979, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). 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 2 on that basis. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 29 June 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00165
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-00246
The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged and be given a general discharge and that his request for an upgrade to honorable be considered due to his excellent on duty work record. 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. ________________________________________________________________ The following...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00654
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00654 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His record of service in the Air Force was honorable. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03129
On 4 April 1986, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first class (E-3) for misconduct – drug abuse, with a general service characterization. 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. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-03129 in Executive Session on 29 October 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00222
On 17 Dec 1989, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. 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. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05533
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05533 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served 3 years and 10 months of honorable service and made one mistake. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01808
The applicant in March 1982 presented for care in the mental health clinic with nervousness and depressive symptoms due to “too much stress on flight line (his crew chief).” His medical records also reflect the applicant was evaluated for alcohol abuse in March 1983, with no other details listed. The evidence in the record shows a diagnosis of a personality disorder, however, the record also shows that the applicant’s duty performance was excellent. There is no indication in the record...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01838
He had served 5 years, 10 months, and 10 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the available medical evidence is insufficient to conclude that the applicant suffered from a psychiatric condition that caused his problems leading to discharge and that further, the condition was of sufficient severity to impair his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01955
He assumed his discharge was upgraded until he requested his records on 2 Nov 2011. 2 On or about 5 Sep 1986, he failed to perform quality On or about 16 Oct 1987, he failed to report to work. 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.