RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03168
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did nothing wrong. He was just there. He has a good record
except for this one incident.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 7 July 1976. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4).
The applicant received three Letters of Counseling between 9 May
1977 and 23 November 1977, for not being available for Bay
Orderly duties, failing to sign out some technical orders, and
not following prescribed procedures in conducting an inspection.
On 11 January 1980, he was tried and found guilty by the 96th
District Court for the County of Marquette, Michigan, for the
malicious destruction of personal property and larceny when he
broke into some fishing shacks located at Johnson Lake, Michigan,
vandalizing them to some extent and stealing some of the
contents. As a result, he received one year suspended sentence
and a fine of $200.
On 5 February 1980, the applicant was notified of his commanders
intent to recommend him for discharge for misconduct, to wit: a
civil court conviction. The applicant acknowledged receipt of
his commanders intent, consulted counsel, and waived his right
to an administrative discharge board with the condition that he
receive a general discharge.
On 19 February 1980, the group commander recommended the
applicants conditional waiver for a general discharge be
accepted based on his military record as a whole.
The case was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority
approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant be
discharged under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12,
Chapter 2, Section C, paragraph 2-23, without probation or
rehabilitation, and that he be issued a general discharge
certificate.
The applicant was discharged from active duty in the grade of
senior airman effective 19 March 1980 with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge. His narrative reason for
separation reflects Misconduct Civil Court Disposition Board
Waiver. He served 3 years, 8 months, and 13 days on active
duty.
On 25 January 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to
submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C).
In response, the applicant provided an electronic communication
indicting his accomplishments since his discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 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
________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03168 in Executive Session on 25 April 2013, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03168 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 12, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jan 13, w/atch.
Exhibit D. E-Mail, Applicant, dated 8 Feb 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01250
On 13 January 1982 the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service. The applicant was discharged from active duty in the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 28 January 1982 with an UOTHC 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03740
This program was completed on 15 October 1976 and on 22 November 1976, he was again charged with possession. He served 1 year, 7 months and 28 days on active duty. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03168
On 9 July 1990, the applicant was notified of her commander's intent to recommend her for discharge for a condition that interfered with military service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted. The Medical Consultant states the discharge action, characterization of service and narrative reason for separation are well supported by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03445
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03445 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. He served on the usher board, mens counsel and youth activities. He was credited with 1 year, 3 months and 12 days of active duty service.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03066
On 11 October 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities and in response to the FBI Report (Exhibit D). He was told by his Air Force attorney that his discharge would be upgraded automatically in six months after his discharge, but it was not. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03066 in Executive Session on 15 March 2012, under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02481
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received an honorable discharge and asks that his records be reviewed towards that end. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02297
His DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, reflects Mariposa, California as his home of record at the time of his enlistment. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial. The applicant’s records reflect Mariposa, California as the state he lived in prior to entering the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03168
The applicant acknowledged if the request for discharge was approved he could receive an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable. The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his undesirable discharge upgraded to general. On 14 December 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation regarding his post-service activities (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02693
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01125
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...