RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03368 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

When he “washed-out” of the Air Traffic Controller career field, 
he was not offered an opportunity to transfer to the Electrical 
Power Production career field, which he was under contract for. 

 

The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his 
appeal. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 4 May 1982 and was promoted to the grade 
of airman (E-2) effective 4 November 1982. 

 

On 12 November 1982, the applicant was disenrolled from the Air 
Traffic Controller course due to academic deficiency and, 
recommended for further training in a less technical field. 
Between 1 July 1982 and 2 December 1982, he received six reports 
of counseling. On 7 December 1982, he received Article 15 
punishment for being derelict in the performance of his duties, 
in that he negligently failed to remain alert while on post as a 
dormitory guard. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $100 
of his pay, a suspended reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1), 
and restricted to the confines of the base for 30 days. 

 

On 17 December 1982, the applicant was notified of his 
commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged for 
unsatisfactory performance with a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification and elected to waive his rights to consult counsel 
and to submit statements in his own behalf. On 20 December 1982, 
the Chief, Civil Law Division, found the case to be legally 


sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a 
general characterization of service for unsatisfactory 
performance under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, 
Chapter 5, Section E, paragraph 5-26, without probation or 
rehabilitation. 

 

On 21 December 1982, the discharge authority approved the 
recommended discharge. On 22 December 1982, the applicant was 
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
He served 7 months and 19 days on active duty. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an 
Investigation Report (Exhibit C). 

 

On 26 October 2010, the applicant was given an opportunity to 
submit comments about his post service activities and in response 
to the FBI Report (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has 
received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Furthermore, we do 
not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant 
has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service 
activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-03368 in Executive Session on 16 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-03368 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 10. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. FBI Report. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 10, w/atch.