Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00163
Original file (BC-2013-00163.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00163
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the time period in question, the applicant was under a 
lot of stress due to personal problems.  She attended counseling 
at the base hospital and indicated to the doctor that she had 
been sexually abused as a child.  The doctor made her take the 
personality disorder test twice.  She believes these issues had 
an effect on her military career.  She further states that she 
was informed that she could receive an upgrade of her discharge 
within six months of her separation.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides an unofficial 
transcript and a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 July 1980.

The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to 
recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct – Pattern of Minor 
Disciplinary Infractions).  The specific reasons for the 
commanders decision was the applicant had been counseled on 
seven occasions for various infractions including failing to 
properly maintain her dormitory room, failing to comply with AFR 
35-10 uniform and appearance standards, unauthorized use of a 
government vehicle by her dependents, and dereliction of duty.  
She received two letters of reprimand for failing to comply with 
AFR 35-10 uniform and appearance standards and for leaving a 
weapon in a security police vehicle without securing it.  Also, 
she received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for 
dereliction of duty and for failing to go.

The applicant was advised of her rights in the matter and after 
consulting with counsel the applicant elected to submit a 
statement on her own behalf.  In a legal review of the case 
file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient 
and recommended discharge.  The discharge authority concurred 
with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 11 July 
1983.  She served 3 years and 11 months on active duty.

On 18 April 1986, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
considered and denied the applicant’s request that her general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded.  They 
concluded 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.  There 
exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge 
(Exhibit B).

________________________________________________________________
_

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, based on the evidence before us, we find no 
basis to grant clemency at this time.  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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-00163 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 March 2012, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.





2


3



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY1998 | 9701105

    Original file (9701105.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01105 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman (E-21, which was the grade he held at the time of discharge. Applicant alleges that the discharge authority discharged him prematurely before completion of an investigation of three Inspector General (IG) complaints he filed and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02153

    Original file (BC-2006-02153.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02153 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 27 March 1989, the discharge authority directed that she be discharged with a general under honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202154

    Original file (0202154.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the LOCs and LORs on file were submitted by his supervisor (SSgt P.). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02154

    Original file (BC-2002-02154.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the LOCs and LORs on file were submitted by his supervisor (SSgt P.). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02253

    Original file (BC-2007-02253.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02253 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 JAN 2009 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His characterization of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. On 26 April 1985, he was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01835

    Original file (BC-2013-01835.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01835 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant was discharged on 16 May 1990. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 December 2013.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04071

    Original file (BC 2014 04071.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04071 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 21 Nov 83, the action was found to be legally sufficient and on 29 Nov 83, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As of this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05603

    Original file (BC 2013 05603.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Before recommending discharge the commander noted he reviewed the applicant’s records. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service information we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted on that basis. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00397

    Original file (BC-2006-00397.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records; the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. We...