RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03599 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The punishment of receiving a UHC discharge is inequitable 
because it was based on incidents that happened in a one-year 
period and does not reflect his performance during his 11 years 
of service. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 2 Aug 83. 
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47a, for a pattern of 
misconduct. For the specific reasons, see attachment one to the 
Discharge Notification letter at Exhibit B. 

 

The applicant received punishment under the provisions Article 15 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); for: 

 

 a. Violating Article 92: Being derelict in the performance of 
his duties by willfully deviating from his direct route to 
Wenigerath Weapons Storage Area where he was to deliver box 
lunches. 

 

 b. Violating Article 91: Disobeying a lawful order to remain 
on telephone standby and notify the weekend supervisor of his 
whereabouts. 

 

 c. Violating Article 86: Failing to go at the time prescribed 
to his appointed place of duty. 

 



 d. Violating Article 113: Falling asleep at his post, which was 
the Entry Control Point. 

 

On 2 Sep 86, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge 
notification and waived his right to appear before an 
administrative discharge board, to be represented by military 
counsel and to submit statements on his behalf, contingent upon 
his receipt of no less than a general discharge. After a legal 
review, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally 
sufficient and recommended the discharge authority accept the 
conditional waiver. The discharge authority accepted the 
conditional waiver and approved the applicant general discharge. 
The applicant received a general (UHC) discharge on 25 Sep 86 
after serving 3 years, 1 month, and 24 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 his service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. Moreover, the 
applicant received the characterization of service that he 
requested in his conditional waiver. Despite this, in the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based 
on clemency; however, the applicant has provided no evidence 
concerning his post-service accomplishments 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03599 in Executive Session on 25 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.