RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00264 

 INDEX CODE: 110.00 

  COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

At the time of discharge, he was offered an expedited general 
discharge. After accepting this offer, he learned that the 
phrase “Pattern of Misconduct” was added. He believes the stigma 
of a general discharge may hamper his future career goals. 

 

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of 
his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the 
Armed Forces of the United States and a personal letter. 

 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 September 
1981 and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior 
airman. 

 

On 12 December 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander 
that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, for a pattern of misconduct; conduct prejudicial to good 
order and discipline. The specific reasons for this action were: 
1) He received three Armed Forces Traffic Tickets for speeding 
and operating a motorcycle while not wearing the proper 
protective safety equipment 2) He received three Letters of 
Reprimand for failure to report to M-60 training, failure to show 
for guard mount on time, failure to maintain standby status, and 
failure to turn in code material; 3) He received a Letter of 
Counseling for failure to respond properly to an exercise and not 
having the required equipment needed for the exercise; 3) He 


received an Article 15 for dereliction in the performance of his 
duties. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge, received advice from a military defense attorney and 
waived his right to submit statements. The Staff Judge Advocate 
found the case legally sufficient to support the separation and 
recommended the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and 
that he receive a general discharge. On 20 December 1985, the 
discharge authority determined that a general discharge was 
appropriate in light of the applicant’s overall military record. 

 

On 20 December 1985, the applicant was discharged with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge after completing a period 
of 4 years, 3 months and 10 days total active service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that based on 
the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record. 

 

In response to a request to provide information concerning his 
post-service activities, the applicant states he was a bit 
immature in his 20’s and his attitude at times, was that of a 
foolish young man. He has turned his life around since his 
discharge from the Air Force and has attached several statements 
and letters from both community and professional acquaintances. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
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 have considered 
the applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which 


precipitated the discharge, and the available evidence related to 
post-service activities, and we do we do not believe clemency is 
warranted. 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-2010-00264 in Executive Session on 7 July 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.