RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02903 

COUNSEL: NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was stationed in Nevada; a member of two championshipbasketball teams, and was the 1983 Airman of the Year, 1983;
however, poor training and a jealous sergeant led to his 
discharge. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On 1 Jun 81, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force fora period of four years. 

On 9 Mar 83, the squadron commander notified the applicant ofadministrative discharge action for a pattern of misconduct.
For a full list of the offenses, please see the commander’snotification letter at Exhibit B. After consulting with counseland having been advised of his rights, the applicant submittedstatements in his own behalf. The staff judge advocate foundthe case file legally sufficient and recommended the applicantreceive a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation(P&R). On 29 Mar 83, the discharge authority approved thegeneral discharge without P&R. 

On 30 Mar 83, the applicant was discharged by reason of 
misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, withservice characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
He was credited with 1 year and 10 months of active duty 
service. 


Other relevant facts pertaining to this application, extractedfrom the applicant's military records, are at Exhibit B. 
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in thisRecord of Proceedings. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided byexisting law or regulations. 
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in theinterest 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 ofthe case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injusticethat occurred during the discharge process. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge wasconsistent 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 tobelieve the characterization of the service was contrary to theprovisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. Considering theapplicant’s overall record of service, the numerous infractionswhich led to his administrative separation and the lack of postservice 
documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade ofthe characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basisof clemency. Should the applicant provide additional 
information, e.g., post-service documentation to support hisclaim, we would be willing to reconsider his request.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we findno basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has notbeen shown that a personal appearance with or without counselwill materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorablyconsidered. 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; theapplication was denied without a personal appearance; and theapplication will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 

2 



newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with thisapplication. 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR DocketNumber BC-2012-02903 in Executive Session on 14 Feb 13, underthe provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 12.

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.