RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00933 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was a good airman for four years. He was convicted by a 
special-court-martial for driving while intoxicated (DWI), a one-
time mistake in the final month of his enlistment. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the 
Armed Forces of the United States and a personal letter. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 August 1986 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first 
class. 

 

On 5 March 1990, the applicant was notified by his commander that 
he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for 
a pattern of misconduct and discreditable involvement with 
military authorities. The specific reasons for this action were: 
1) He received three Article 15 actions for wrongfully using 
provoking gestures and failure to go at the time prescribed to 
his appointed place of duty; 2) He was court-martial for DWI. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and received advice from a military defense attorney. 
The Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient 
to support the separation and recommended the applicant’s request 
for discharge be approved and that he receive a general 
discharge. On 22 March 1990, the discharge authority determined 
that a general discharge was appropriate in light of the 
applicant’s overall military record. 


 

On 3 April 1990, the applicant was discharged with a general 
discharge after completing three years, five months and one day 
of total active service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an 
Investigation Report (Exhibit C). 

 

On 1 June 2010, the FBI investigation and a request for post-
service information were forwarded to the applicant for response 
within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received 
by this office (Exhibit D). 

 

Examiner's Note: At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the 
service characterization received was appropriate under the 
provisions of the governing regulation in effect at the time. 
Attached at Exhibit E, is an excerpt from AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, which shows the current 
criteria for determining the characterization of service under 
similar circumstances. Additionally, notwithstanding the absence 
of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant 
relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 addition, in view 
of the contents of the FBI Report, we are not persuaded that an 
upgrade of the characterization of his discharge to honorable is 

 

warranted on the basis of clemency. Therefore, based on a 
preponderance of the evidence, we find no basis upon which to 
favorably consider his request. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

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 without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-00933 in Executive Session on 7 July 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Investigation Report, dated 16 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 10, w/atchs.