RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04305 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He needs an honorable discharge to join the United Services 
Automobile Association (USAA). 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 10 Jan 67, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force. 

 

On 26 Mar 68, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for frequent 
involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military 
authorities. The reasons for the discharge action were he 
received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for theft of private property, 
wrongful appropriation of government property, and making a 
false statement. For this misconduct, his punishment consisted 
of correctional custody, reduction in rank, base restriction, 
and suspension of base driving privileges. 

 

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the action and waived his rights to an administrative 
discharge board, or to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

 

On 1 Apr 68, the legal office reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient and recommended discharge with a general 
discharge. 

 



On 4 Apr 68, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and credited with 1 year, 
2 months, and 25 days of total active service. 

 

On 29 Apr 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). In response, the applicant states he lied about 
his tools being stolen from the flight line to avoid having to 
pay out of pocket for the tools. He also provided four 
character references and documentation showing he submitted an 
application for an investigative report from the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation (FBI) (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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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 the interest of justice, we 
considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, 
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient 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 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 this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 



 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04305 in Executive Session on 23 May 2013 and 
19 June 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 13, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 13, w/atchs.