Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04071
Original file (BC 2014 04071.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04071

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not get an opportunity for a hearing or a court-martial 
prior to separation.  His discharge was for having a toy pellet 
gun.  It was seen as being an actual fire arm because it had a 
projectile.  There was not any property damage of human contact 
with the toy gun of any kind.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
2 Jul 82.

On 10 Nov 83, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending his discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.  
The reasons for this action are as follows:  on 28 Feb 83, the 
applicant received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC) for 
not following specific instructions on the proper operation of a 
security police vehicle; on 27 Mar 83, he received a RIC for not 
having all his required equipment during a mobility inspection; 
on 14 Jun 83, he received RIC for failing to show for scheduled 
weapons firing appointment; on 5 Jul 83, he received RIC for 
failing to comply with AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance, 
by being observed during an inspection as having a hole in his 
fatigue shirt; on 6 Jul 83, he received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) for failing to attend commander’s call and failing to 
follow an order to proceed to the ammunition storage area 
arguing and cussing with a non-commissioned officer.

On 10 Nov 83, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and of his right to consult legal counsel and submit statements 
on his own behalf. 

On 21 Nov 83, the action was found to be legally sufficient and 
on 29 Nov 83, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge. 

On 1 Dec 83, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with one year 
and five months of active service.   

On 8 Oct 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-2014-04071 in Executive Session on 16 Apr 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-04071 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 14. 

						

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05845

    Original file (BC 2013 05845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05845 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, due to the applicant’s failure to provide information regarding his post-service activities, we cannot conclude that such...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00855

    Original file (BC 2014 00855.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 03978

    Original file (BC 2013 03978.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 was within the commander's discretionary authority. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence for us to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03197

    Original file (BC 2014 03197.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03197 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect all awards and decorations received. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00727

    Original file (BC 2014 00727.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00727 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02807

    Original file (BC-2002-02807.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 7 Jun 85. He petitioned the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to upgrade his discharge to honorable in 1993. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03090

    Original file (BC 2014 03090.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service warrant such an action.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00937

    Original file (BC 2014 00937.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 Dec 83, the applicant’s commander recommended that her request be approved. 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 warrant such consideration. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jul 14.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02035

    Original file (BC 2014 02035.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 00997

    Original file (BC 2014 00997.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...