RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01724

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his discharge upgraded to receive veterans’ benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Nov 86, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force (RegAF).

On 4 Jun 87, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct.  
The specific reasons for the action included one incidence of being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer, for which he 
received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and one incidence of being intoxicated on station.

On 9 Jun 87, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his rights to 
submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 11 Jun 87, the legal office reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished a 
general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority concurred with the findings and 
recommendation and directed the applicant’s discharge.  On 
15 Jun 87, the applicant was furnished a general discharge and 
was credited with seven months and two days of total active 
service.

The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board 
(DRB) to have his general discharge upgraded.  On 31 Dec 90, the 
AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s request for an 
upgrade of his discharge, concluding that it was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative 
due process.

On 17 Jan 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  In response, the applicant states he performed his 
duties to the best of his ability and tried to instill pride, 
self-dignity, and teamwork to his flight.  He drank out of 
boredom and loneliness.  Since his discharge he has worked for 
several companies and takes care of his mother.  He is currently 
trying to open an art gallery and assists others in his community 
whenever he can.  The applicant also provided a statement from 
his therapist which states he has been undergoing treatment with 
the Health Center for his Bipolar Disorder.

The applicant’s complete response, with an attachment, 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 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.  We considered upgrading the 
discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting 
the relief sought on that basis.  Furthermore, while the applicant contends that he is seeking an upgrade of his 
discharge to honorable to qualify for benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), he should know that 
his general (under honorable conditions) discharge qualifies him for certain DVA benefits and should contact the DVA for 
clarification.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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-2013-01724 in Executive Session on 27 Feb 14 and 
4 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 13.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 14, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.
1 2