RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02919 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to an Honorable discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was informed at the time of his discharge that he was to wait 
at least six months and request an upgrade to an Honorable 
discharge. He would like to have that done now. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Air Force on 6 Aug 67. 

 

On 20 Dec 90, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for 
“Misconduct—Commission of a Serious Offense,” and recommended 
the applicant for discharge. The reason for this action was 
that on or about 17 Jun 90, he wrongfully appropriated 
approximately 15 compact discs, a compact disc player, and 
$30.00 in currency, the property of another Air Force member. 
As a result, he was convicted in a Special Court-Martial on 
14 Nov 90, was reduced in rank to Airman, forfeited $200.00 pay 
per month for three months, and was held in confinement for 
three months. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s 
notification, consulted with legal counsel, and submitted 
statements on his own behalf. 

 

On 26 Dec 90, the case was determined to be legally sufficient, 
and on 27 Dec 90, the discharge authority directed the applicant 
be discharged with a characterization of service as General. 

 


On 22 Jan 91, the applicant was issued a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge certificate for “Misconduct—
Other Serious Offense.” 

 

On 4 Dec 12, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (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. Our authority to 
provide relief of the applicant’s conviction by court-martial is 
limited to clemency. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we 
considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; 
however, the applicant provided no evidence upon which we could 
base a recommendation to grant the relief sought on that basis. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
conclude that no basis exists to grant the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 the 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02919 in Executive Session on 28 Feb 13, 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 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Dec 12, w/atch.