RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01757
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
2. His narrative reason for separation be removed.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The narrative reason for separation Discreditable Involvement
with Military or Civil Authorities is a bad reflection of his
overall character and has raised questions and/or concerns from
employers that require background checks. He has been an
outstanding citizen in his community and does not feel that an
incident (car accident) where he disagreed with civilian
authorities in the United Kingdom should reflect on his overall
military or civilian career. He has never had any other
altercations nor has he been arrested for any reason over the past
25 years since his discharge from the Air Force.
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 30 Sep 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
for a period of four years.
On 2 Oct 1987, his commander notified him that he was recommending
he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative
Separation of Airmen. The specific reasons for his action are
reflected in the Notification Memorandum at Exhibit B.
On 2 Oct 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification.
On 8 Oct 1987, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the discharge
legally sufficient.
On 23 Oct 1987, he was discharged from the Air Force with a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He received a
narrative reason for separation of Discreditable Involvement with
Military or Civil Authorities. He served a total of four years,
one month and eight days of active duty.
On 4 Dec 2013, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C).
In an undated letter the applicant states that during his tour in
England he suffered from a sleep disorder which led to two car
accidents and a recommendation from his first sergeant to obtain a
mental health evaluation. He subsequently requested to leave the
Air Force. After leaving the Air Force he spent a number of years
evaluating his career opportunities, going back to school and
finalizing his degree. Today he manages three successful
companies in Florida and holds three business patents with the
U.S. Patent Office. He has a wonderful family, is an active
member of the Church and is a very devout Christian. The choices
he made when he was young do not reflect the person he is today.
He implores the Board to consider his post-service activities and
upgrade his discharge and change his narrative reason for
separation of "Discernible [sic] Involvement with Military or
Civil Authorities," as there is no supporting documentation.
In further support of his request, the applicant provides a resume
of his accomplishments in business and brief references from
personal and business relationships.
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, 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. While the applicant
believes a car accident was the basis for his discharge, the
evidence reflects that during the period of 1 Nov 1986 through
15 Aug 1987, he wrongfully appropriated approximately $1,700.
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 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-01757:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, undated.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.
Panel Chair
2
2
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00475
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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 1967 for a period of four years as an airman basic. The applicant was found guilty of the lesser charge of negligent homicide (Article 134, UCMJ) and driving while drunk and causing a motor vehicle accident and injuring others. The applicant alleges that his attorney was court appointed, but in fact the applicant requested that XXXXX.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04775
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04775 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. These additional aggravating factors are indicated by the applicants UOTHC service characterization given by the discharge authority. The complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02826
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02826 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 1 Aug 81, the applicant was counseled for failure to go. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF FBI...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03089
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03089 XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a General Discharge. At the time of his discharge, he was 17 years old and realizes he was not fit for military service. Specifically, the commander noted the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00743
29, the General Court-Martial convening authority set aside the finding of guilty and the sentence from the applicants 1987 court-martial, and the preferred charges against the applicant were dismissed effective upon his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTCH). We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion; however, we do not find the documentation presented sufficient to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01455
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01455 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be change to honorable {sic}. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01822
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01822 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He realizes that he was not injured from enemy...
She provides medical records that she believes indicate her ex-husband was treated for injuries consistent with a driver of an automobile in a head-on collision. The records also indicate that the injuries were sustained in a motor vehicle accident and that he was the possible driver. Also, in a Social Work Service report from applicant’s medical records, dated 31 January 1996, a social worker noted: “MVA [Motor Vehicle Accident] New Year’s Eve was patient’s 3rd DWI [Driving While...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02444
A complete copy of the AFRC/SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation that substantiates that a DD Form 214 should have been issued for the period of service in question (i.e., active duty orders reflecting that she completed 90 continuous days or more of active duty, or reflecting that she has been involuntarily mobilized during the event of a national emergency or war under 10 USC 12301, 12302, 12304,...