RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01476
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded
to Honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After an honorable first enlistment, conditions declined during
his assignment at . He was wrongly disciplined for
alleged infractions because he was hated by his members of his
chain of command. He was wrongfully charged for an intoxicated
driving incident that never occurred. He further contends that
he asked for help but none was offered.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 Jan 82, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air
Force.
On 22 Jul 83, the applicants commander notified him that he was
recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory
performance. The reasons for the action were failure to comply
with dress and appearance standards, for which he received
counselling; failure to go to his appointed place of duty, for
which he received punishment pursuant to an Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); driving while
intoxicated and causing an accident, for which he received a
letter of reprimand and was placed on a Control Roster for
declining duty performance, bearing, and behavior; and two
instances of writing a check against an account with
insufficient funds, for which he received a letter of
counselling.
28 Jul 83, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification. He waived his right to a hearing before an
administrative discharge board or submit statements on his own
behalf. He did not waive his right to counsel.
On 8 Sep 83, the discharge was found legally sufficient and the
discharge authority concurred with the commanders
recommendation the same day.
On 9 Sep 83, the applicant was furnished an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge for unsatisfactory performance,
and was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 25 days of active
service.
On 4 Aug 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
applicants post-service activities, there is no way for us to
determine if the applicants 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.
4. The applicants case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
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-2014-01476 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01881
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01881 INDEX CODE: A67.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02355
Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for unsatisfactory performance was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03090
On 16 Apr 85, he received NJP for writing a dishonorable check. On 21 May 85, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicants post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicants accomplishments since leaving the service warrant such an action.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00865
The applicant was discharged on 12 Oct 84. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 10, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00855
On 14 Dec 83, the applicant received an UOHTC discharge, and was credited with 9 years, 8 months and 17 days of active service. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicants discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post- service information we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted. Exhibit C. Clemency Information...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-205-02185
On 9 Sep 86, the commander notified the applicant that the results of the positive urinalysis would not be used to characterize his service. On 29 Oct 86, the applicant was advised that at anytime before action on the recommendation for discharge was complete, he could apply for retirement. To date, a response has not been received.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00192
He was given an Article 15, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment, on 9 Jun 83. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was unable to identify with an arrest record based on the information furnished (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02035
On 5 Aug 83, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days of active service. On 3 Aug 85, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to honorable. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02139
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02139 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. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00997 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading...