Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00503
Original file (BC-2013-00503.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00503
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on an 
isolated incident.  He had no other adverse actions and received 
numerous awards during his service.  Moreover, he is unable to 
obtain services he deserves as a veteran.

In support of his request the applicant provides a copy of DD 
Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed 
Forces of the United States.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
__

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Jul 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.

On 6 Nov 1986, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reason for 
his action is reflected in the Notification Memorandum at 
Exhibit B.

On 6 Nov 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification.

On 26 Nov 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the 
discharge legally sufficient.

On 19 Feb 1986, the SJA requested the applicant be placed on 
administrative hold due to his inappropriate conduct and false 
statements during out-processing. 

On 24 Feb 1987, he was discharged from the Air Force with a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The narrative 
reason for separation was “Misconduct-Drug Abuse.”  He served a 
total of 4 years, 6 months and 26 days of active duty.

On 20 Sep 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). 

On 5 Oct 2013, the applicant provided an extensive personal 
statement regarding the events that led to his discharge.  When 
he joined the military at the age of 18, he had a wife and a new 
baby.  His father had been a doctor in the Air Force and his 
brother just came back from his duty in the Army.  Although he 
feels it was not justified at the time; he admits his mistake 
and has suffered the consequences with the type of discharge he 
received.  He has lived a humble life and has been happily 
married for over 31 years.  He has not done anything 
spectacular; however, he is very proud that he has raised two 
very strong happy children.  He and his wife are proud Catholics 
and believe in a strict and loving environment.  His son is a 
successful engineer and his daughter is in her second year of 
college.  He would hate for his discharge to affect the future 
of his children.  He is a model citizen and takes pride in his 
character and reputation.  He did not allow a bad situation to 
hinder his family's future.  In further support of his request, 
the applicant also provides a statement from his wife who 
asserts that he has more integrity than anyone she knows.  They 
have lived a modest and happy life raising their children who 
have promising futures that will benefit the community.  Her 
husband has built a strong and lasting career as a Network 
Engineer with Motorola.  She beseeches the Board to upgrade his 
discharge and give him the clemency he deserves.

His complete response, with attachment, 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, to include his response 
to the post service request, 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 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 29 Oct 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-00503:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 2013, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Sep 2013.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Oct 2013, w/atch.





                                   
                                   Panel Chair


2


2





Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00172

    Original file (ND99-00172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My family is also going through counseling as well and it has proved to help them tremendously. I recommend that MSSN (applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.970922: Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Changes in the applicant’s life since his discharge do not change the facts leading up to and the reason for his discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1988 | BC 1988 03555 1

    Original file (BC 1988 03555 1.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1988-03555 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. He now lives a drug and alcohol free life and is employed as a professional firefighter/EMT-B and educator. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-1988-03555-1

    Original file (BC-1988-03555-1.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1988-03555 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. He now lives a drug and alcohol free life and is employed as a professional firefighter/EMT-B and educator. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00146

    Original file (BC-2012-00146.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A retiring member may change his SBP election up to the date of separation. The member elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full retired pay on 16 Jun 2011. However, on 30 Nov 2011, one day prior to his 1 Dec 2011 retirement, he changed his election to decline SBP coverage and his wife concurred with his election.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703098

    Original file (9703098.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant committed a violation of the Honor Code that was deserving of disenrollment, and none of his arguments can change that fact. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy for an honor code violation. We further note that the Air Force Psrsonnel Board, concerned about the appearance of inconsistent treatment 3 AFBCMR 97-03098 - regarding the applicant‘s case and a similar case of another cadet, returned the applicant’s case to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741

    Original file (BC-2003-01741.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02614

    Original file (BC-2005-02614.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The base legal office reviewed the case, found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states, 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00475

    Original file (BC-2013-00475.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGM) is awarded to Air Force enlisted personnel during a three-year period of active military service or for a one-year period of service during a time of war. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was not capable of meeting Air Force standards, as such, we find no basis to recommend award of the AFGCM. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02719

    Original file (BC-2006-02719.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His military records state he was unable to conform to military standards and that rehabilitation was unwarranted. On 8 Dec 1986, the applicant was separated from military service and issued a general discharge. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05633

    Original file (BC 2013 05633.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05633 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Evaluation Officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and be considered for probation and rehabilitation. In the interest of justice, we...