RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04907
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded; 
however, he has not received a copy of the discharge upgrade.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with his 11 Mar 87 separation.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, the applicant reenlisted on, 
6 Apr 84, for a period of six years.  

On 2 Mar 87, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for minor disciplinary 
infractions.  For a full list of the offenses, please see the 
commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B.  After consulting 
with counsel and having been advised of his rights, the 
applicant submitted a conditional waiver of the rights 
associated with an administrative discharge board hearing if he  
received no less than a general discharge.  The staff judge 
advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended 
the conditional waiver be accepted and the applicant receive a 
general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  
On 4 Mar 87, the discharge authority approved the general 
discharge without P&R.

On 11 Mar 87, the applicant was discharged by reason of 
misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, with 
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  
He was credited with 2 year, 11 months, and 6 days of active 
duty service during this period, with seven years, three months, 
and 1 day of prior active duty service.  

Other relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted 
from the applicant's military records, are at Exhibit B.  
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this 
Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

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 during the discharge process.  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 applicant’s discharge on the 
basis of clemency; however, considering his overall record of 
service, the numerous infractions which led to his 
administrative separation and the lack of post-service 
documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the 
characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis on 
this basis.  Should the applicant provide additional 
information, e.g., post-service documentation to support his 
claim, we would be willing to reconsider his request.  
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-2012-04907 in Executive Session on 6 Aug 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.