Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03618
Original file (BC-2012-03618.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03618 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In his first assignment he was placed in the transportation 
career field which according to his supervisor did not need or 
want any new people. He was pushed to the side and had to fend 
for himself. 

 

He developed a drinking problem during his first assignment and 
tried to get help. He is a good standing citizen in the 
community and country and has been alcohol free since his 
discharge. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 15 Jul 85, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular 
Air Force. 

 

On 5 Aug 86, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander 
that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a 
pattern of misconduct. The reasons for the proposed action were: 
1) He received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for reporting for 
duty unshaven; 2) He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
again reporting for duty unshaven; 3) He received an Article 
15 for reporting for duty as a vehicle operator while drunk; 4) 
He received a LOC for reporting late for duty; 5) He received a 
Letter of Unsatisfactory Performance for a list of violations; 
and 6) He received a LOR for reporting two hours late for duty. 

 

On 13 Aug 86, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal 
counsel, submitted statements in his own behalf. 

 

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support separation and recommended that he receive 
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without 
probation and rehabilitation. 


 

On 9 Sep 86, the applicant was discharged with a general 
discharge (under honorable conditions) under the provisions of 
AFM 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct-
Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. 

 

He served on active duty for a period of 1 year, 1 month, and 
25 days. 

 

On 28 Feb 13, a request for information pertaining to his post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response 
within 30 days (Exhibit C). In response to the request, the 
applicant reiterates his original contentions. He states that he 
was young and fell into the wrong crowd. He started drinking 
which caused him to report late for work. He tried to get help 
from his First Sergeant, and even asked to be placed in 
correctional custody and to lose a stripe, in lieu of discharge. 
He has been alcohol free since 1987. He attends church regularly 
and has been employed in the same job for almost 18 years. He 
understands he did wrong, but hopes the Board will consider an 
upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 

 

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a 
personal statement and six character reference letters. 

 

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 on the basis of 
clemency; however, we do not find sufficient evidence 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 Docket Number 
BC-2012-03618 in Executive Session on 18 Feb 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2004-00259

    Original file (FD2004-00259.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ‘The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. in view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed, Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2004-00259 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFE, MD {former AlC) (HGH A1G) 1. Commander, 90th Maintenance Operations Squadron Attachments: LOC,...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00246

    Original file (FD2003-00246.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | pyy9993.00246 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The misconduct included willfully destroying U.S. government property, underage drinking, wrongfully possessing another military members identification card, communicating a threat, late for duty, dereliction of duty, failure to go, and possessing contraband while in correctional custody. For this infraction, you received a Letter of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00222

    Original file (FD2006-00222.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ...............2 RECORD REVIEW ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATIOY OF COUNSEL VOTE OF THE BOARD HON GEN UOTHC OTHER I DENY I I EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD I I 1 2 3 4 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE HEARING DATE 1 13 Mar 2007 CASE NUMBER ( FD-2006-00222 I I I I I APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00264

    Original file (FD2006-00264.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes 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. I have reviewed the proposed discharge action and find it legally sufficient to support a decision to separate Respondent for minor disciplinary infractions with an under honorable conditions (General)...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0414

    Original file (FD2002-0414.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE |} pppo02-0414 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. On 20 Dec 00, he received his second LOC for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on several occasions. Discharge the respefident with a general discharge, with or without probation and rehabilitation; or, c. Recommend to WR-ALC/CC that the respondent be discharged with an honorable discharge with or without probation and...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2007-00011

    Original file (FD2007-00011.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    'The Vacation action for failure to go resulted in a forfeiture of pay. CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes 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 23 Mar 05, you showed up for a firing appointment unshaven, As a result, you received a LRtter of Reprimand (LOR) on 24 Mar 04 (Tab 1-2).

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00403

    Original file (FD2005-00403.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I I I 1 I AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 1 AFSNISSAN I I I GRADE I I 1 TYPE GEN 1 I x j NAME dF COUNSEL AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORDREVIEW ORGANlZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION O F COUNSEL MEMBER SITTING I 1 HON I VOTE OF: THE BOARD GEN UOTHC OTHER 1 DENY .-----------------------------------, ISSUES INDEX NUMBER A67.10 A92.15 A92.21 X EXHIBITS SUB-ED TO THE BOARD 1 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 1 I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 2 3 1 LETTER OF...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00226

    Original file (FD2003-00226.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD03-0226 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The applicant did not receive a “bad discharge”. For this act of misconduct you received an Article 15, dated 22 Jun 94.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00148

    Original file (BC 2013 00148.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00148 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists for us to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02035

    Original file (BC 2014 02035.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Aug 83, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days of active service. On 3 Aug 85, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to honorable. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.