RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02431

			COUNSEL:  NONE

	  		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His character of service was honorable but he was told the only 
way he could be released from his enlistment was to accept a 
general discharge.  He was advised that he could apply to the 
Board for an automatic upgrade to honorable.

Prior to his discharge, he had zero disciplinary actions.

He was given the option to get out and accepted the offer but 
was not aware of the discharge characterization until final 
disposition.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Sep 1989, the applicant entered active duty.

On 12 Apr 1995, the applicant’s commander notified him that he 
was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for 
minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons for his 
actions were the applicant was counselled for coming to work 
late, numerous violations of AFR 35-10, carrying a concealed 
weapon and Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  

On 12 Apr 1995, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter 
of notification, consulted legal counsel and submitted a 
statement in his own behalf.  

On 17 Apr 1995, the staff judge advocate found the case legally 
sufficient to support the basis for separation.   

On 18 Apr 1995, the discharge authority approved the 
recommendation.  

On 19 Apr 1995, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as a general (under honorable conditions) with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.” 

He served on active duty for five years, seven months and one 
day.     

On 24 Jan 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service.  As of this date, this office has not 
received a response (Exhibit C).     

________________________________________________________________ 

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 characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service, the infractions which 
led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-
service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on 
this basis is warranted.  Therefore, in view of the above and 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 
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-
2013-02431 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentation was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBMCR, dated 24 Jan 2014, w/atch. 




                                    
                                   Panel Chair