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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He served in support of Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT 
STORM; received the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) for 
good conduct; served his country honorably; and has been an 
outstanding and stand-up citizen since his discharge. 

 

The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of 
his request. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 13 Mar 89, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 26 Jul 89, the applicant operated a motorcycle on Little Rock 
Air Force Base, Arkansas without the proper eye protection, 
license, registration and insurance, in excess of the speed 
limit. For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR). 

 

On 7 Nov 91, the applicant assaulted an individual. For this 
misconduct, he was counseled. 

 

On 30 May 92, the applicant drove while intoxicated, was drunk 
and disorderly, assaulted an individual, and unlawfully entered 
the dormitory room of another airman. For this misconduct, he 
received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), forfeiture of $200 pay 
per month for one month and reduction to the grade of airman 
first class. 

 


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. The applicant acknowledged receipt of 
the notification of discharge and after consulting with counsel, 
he submitted a statement on his own behalf. 

 

On 22 Jun 82, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case 
and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and 
recommended he receive a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 25 Jun 82, the applicant was discharged under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a pattern 
of misconduct, and received a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. He 
served on active duty for a period of 3 years, 3 months and 
17 days. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations (FBI) Clarksburg, WV, states they were unable to 
identify an arrest record on the basis of the information 
furnished. 

 

On 6 Mar 12, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide 
information pertaining to his activities since leaving the 
service. The applicant states he entered the Air Force at the 
age of 18; was young and immature; and has since matured and 
done all the right things in life. He has been working in the 
Automobile Industry for 16 years; is a member of the Association 
of Finance and Insurance Professionals, and a notary public 
(Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not 
find sufficient evidence to compel us to recommend granting the 
relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04476 in Executive Session on 31 May 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 


 

The following documentary evidence considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 6 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit D. Applicant’s Letter, undated.