Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02632
Original file (BC 2014 02632.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02632
 					COUNSEL:  NONE
					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been an outstanding citizen and has never been in any 
trouble. His civilian record over the past 40 years since 
discharge is outstanding.  
 
His discharge should be upgraded to honorable as his records and 
promotion were reflective of a good service member.  His use of 
drugs impaired his ability to serve.  

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to 
consider his untimely application as he is 62 years old and is a 
good citizen.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Oct 71, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

On 30 May 73, the applicant’s commander informed him that he was 
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force In Accordance 
With (IAW) AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, 
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service 
and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program.  The reason for the 
recommendation was that on 3 May 73 he was administered an Article 
15 for possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 and 
Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The 
applicant was counseled in regards to entering the Drug 
Rehabilitation Program but refused to accept rehabilitation which 
subjected him to administrative separation.  The applicant was 
afforded the opportunity to consult with a judge advocate and 
submit statements in his own behalf. 
 
On 30 May 73, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
recommendation. 
 
On 31 May 73, he declined to submit a rebuttal or make a statement 
in his own behalf.

On 13 Jun 73, the acting staff judge advocate determined the 
discharge recommendation was legally sufficient and recommended 
separation with a general discharge. 

On 2 Jul 73, the discharge authority approved the discharge 
recommendation.  

On 9 Jul 73, he was discharged with service characterized as under 
honorable conditions with a Separation Designation Number (SDN) of 
46C which denotes “Apathy, defective attitude and inability to 
expend effort constructively.”  
 
According to a letter provided by the applicant from the U.S. 
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 
Clarksburg, WV dated 15 Nov 14, the applicant has no prior arrest 
data on file at the FBI.  


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 this 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, we find the evidence presented insufficient 
to recommend relief on that basis.  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-2014-02632 in Executive Session on 17 Mar 2015 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jul 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, FBI, dated 15 Nov 14.  

 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02632

    Original file (BC-2009-02632.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s UOTHC discharge for misconduct-sexual deviation 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 UOTHC discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02072

    Original file (BC-2006-02072.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Oct 73, an evaluation officer interviewed the applicant and recommended he be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for unsuitability based upon a defective attitude. ____________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02267

    Original file (BC-2011-02267.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Aug 73, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation for an undesirable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. He accumulated 398 days of lost time, which includes 4 days absent without leave from 9 Aug 73 to 12 Aug 73, and 389 days of confinement from 31 Aug 73 to 23 Sep 74. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02393

    Original file (BC 2014 02393.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02393 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Considering the applicant’s overall record of service, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 14, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02864

    Original file (BC-2009-02864.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-02864 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant was discharged on 3 Jun 81. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 09.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03785

    Original file (BC-2006-03785.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged on 29 Mar 73. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper, or that the information in his discharge case file is erroneous. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jan 07; AFBCMR dated 26 Jan 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00367

    Original file (BC-2005-00367.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00367 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 AUG 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 16 May 74, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a hearing before...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04476

    Original file (BC-2011-04476.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04476 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 16 Jun 92, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00952

    Original file (BC 2014 00952.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also waived a lengthy service probation consideration by the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. He acknowledged his understanding that if the separation authority approves the recommendation for discharge, he will receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. On 16 Jul 91, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the discharge package and found it legally and factually supporting the discharge action and the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02049

    Original file (BC-2007-02049.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was discharged on 26 Apr 73, in the grade of airman first class (E-3), under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A, for Unsuitability, and was issued a general discharge. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...