Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01011
Original file (BC 2014 01011.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01011

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable and correct his reason for discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had good conduct during his time in the service, validated by 
the award of the good conduct medal.  The arrest and charges 
related to the applicant violating a restraining order were 
dismissed by the local authorities.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Oct 86, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force.

On 16 Dec 88, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The reasons for the action 
were: Misconduct – Pattern discreditable involvement with 
Military or Civilian authorities.  The reasons for the action 
included the following:

	a.  On 12 Jul 88, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
unlawfully striking his four-year old daughter with a belt.  For 
this he received 30 days extra duty, a suspended reduction to  
the grade of E-3, and suspended forfeitures of $100.00 per 
month.

	b.  On 22 Jul 88, the applicant violated a lawful order by 
visiting his wife at base quarters.

	c.  On 31 Oct 88, the applicant was convicted in state 
district court of harassment, for having violated a restraining 
order.  He was given a suspended sentence to confinement for 
90 days and placed on probation for two years.  For this he 
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and vacation of his NCO 
status. 

	d.  On 13 Dec 88, the applicant received an LOR for having 
received two traffic citations from Security Police.

On 20 Dec 88 the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge 
notification and requested a conditional waiver of his rights to 
an administrative discharge board hearing in exchange for no 
less than a General discharge.

On or about 15 Feb 89 (illegible date stamp), the discharge was 
found legally sufficient.

On 27 Feb 89 the applicant was furnished a general discharge 
(under honorable conditions), for Misconduct – Pattern 
discreditable involvement with Military or Civilian authorities 
and was credited with 2 years, 3 months, and 26 days of active 
service.   

On 28 Jul 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (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-2014-01011 in Executive Session on 18 Dec 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01011 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01902

    Original file (BC 2014 01902.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01902 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 17 Jun 88, the discharge was found to be legally sufficient. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01420

    Original file (BC-2008-01420.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01420 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1992-02212

    Original file (BC-1992-02212.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 12 January 1993, the AFBCMR considered and denied an application submitted by applicant requesting that his reason for separation and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. On 24 Feb 92, applicant appeared, with counsel, and testified before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for discharge changed. We find no evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00632

    Original file (BC-2005-00632.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81, for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 29 Nov 83, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03914

    Original file (BC 2014 03914.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. On 23 Jun 87, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 6 different occasions. On 3 Dec 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for separation, indicating the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations and was within the sound...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900395

    Original file (9900395.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFDRB 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. In addition, the DD Form 214 on file in the applicant’s personnel record was reissued as a result of the AFDRB decision and is correct. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00326

    Original file (FD2003-00326.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE B/G [dy fe COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00326 HEARING DATE 12 Nov 2003 Case heard at Washington, D.C. submit an application to the AFBCMR SIGNATURE OE SAF/MRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0077

    Original file (FD2002-0077.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) — GRADE AFSN/SSAN——s—~—

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04642

    Original file (BC 2013 04642.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04642 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 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 conclude that his contributions to his community since leaving the service are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01497

    Original file (BC-2008-01497.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Oct 89, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. He was discharged on 11 Oct 89. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either...