Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00685
Original file (BC 2014 00685.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00685

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge after 55 months of service was inequitable as the 
decision was based on one isolated incident, which occurred 
after completing temporary duty in Thailand. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 Nov 
90.

Between 4 Jan 95 and 6 Jun 95, the applicant received four 
Article 15s, Nonjudicial Punishment; which consisted of two 
instances of drug abuse, one instance of violating base 
restriction and one instance of failing to pay just debts.  
Punishment consisted of extra duty, base restriction, forfeiture 
of pay, and demotion to airman basic.  

On 14 Jun 95, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge 
proceedings with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 
pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
Section H, paragraph 5.54 and 5.50.2 for misconduct based on 
drug abuse and pattern of misconduct.  The same day, the 
applicant acknowledged notification and on 19 Jun 95 submitted 
an unconditional waiver of his rights associated with an 
administrative discharge board. 

On 10 Jul 95, the applicant was furnished an Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions discharge, and was credited with 4 years, 7 
months, and 13 days of active service.   
A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant 
on 28 Apr 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, 
no response has been received by this office.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


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 an 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the 
applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to 
determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the 
service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct 
for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought. 



THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-00685 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin - Clemency.

						


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02118

    Original file (BC 2014 02118.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02118 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01858

    Original file (BC 2014 01858.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01858 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. He has also been sober for eight years. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00240

    Original file (BC 2014 00240.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00240 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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 relief on that basis. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03982

    Original file (BC 2014 03982.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 Feb 95, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to Honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02988

    Original file (BC-2010-02988.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02988 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01696

    Original file (BC 2014 01696 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01696 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 28 Jan 14, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to Honorable. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01010

    Original file (BC 2014 01010.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01010 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. On 17 Feb 09, the applicant was notified by her commander he was recommending her for discharge for Misconduct: Drug Abuse, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, with a General (Under Honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05729

    Original file (BC 2013 05729.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05729 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities warrant such...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03190

    Original file (BC 2014 03190.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03190 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was an excellent Airman and all Enlisted Performance Reports and Feedback Worksheets reflect that fact. The discharge authority approved the administrative discharge with a service characterization of General...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01996

    Original file (BC 2014 01996.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01996 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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...