Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00822
Original file (BC 2014 00822.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00822

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be updated to 
Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged over 31 years ago, when he was very young.  He 
would like his discharge updated so he may take advantage of 
educational benefits provided by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 Jul 
83.

On 10 Jan 84, the applicant admitted in a sworn statement to 
smoking marijuana.  

On 1 May 84, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
and establishment of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for 
admitting to smoking marijuana.

On 9 May 84, the applicant was notified by his commander he was 
being recommended for discharge pursuant of AFR 39-10, 
Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience 
of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, 
Section H, paragraph 5.49c for his admitted use of marijuana.  

On 14 May 1984, after consulting with counsel, the applicant 
waived his rights to an administrative discharge board 
contingent upon his receipt of no less than a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.

On 18 May 84, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed and found the 
discharge package legally sufficient.  They recommended a 
General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.

On 30 May 84, the applicant was furnished a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 10 months 
and 13 days of active service.   

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the 
applicant on 25 Apr 14, for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


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-2014-00822 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 7 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin - Clemency.

						





Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03450

    Original file (BC 2014 03450.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03450 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02349

    Original file (BC 2014 02349.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02349 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. On 27 Mar 84, the discharge authority approved the Conditional Waiver and ordered a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01637

    Original file (BC 2014 01637.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01637 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered...

  • 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 00378

    Original file (BC 2013 00378.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 14 May 1982 to 26 July 1984. The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) on 26 July 1984 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service and a narrative reason for discharge of “Misconduct – Drug Abuse.” ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00394

    Original file (BC 2014 00394.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would very much like the Board to review his file and upgrade his discharge. 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 notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance;...

  • 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02897

    Original file (BC 2014 02897.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this offense she was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2) (suspended until 1 Aug 82), forfeiture of $50 per month for two months, and 30 days extra duty. On 10 Apr 86, the applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with counsel. The Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03185

    Original file (BC 2014 03185.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03185 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. The discharge authority reviewed the case and based on the applicant’s failure to successfully complete the alcohol abuse rehabilitation program approved his discharge with a service characterization of General (Under Honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01065

    Original file (BC 2014 01065.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01065 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. He received a reduction in grade to airman basic and 15 days of correctional custody. 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...