SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1984-03763-3

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

(AKA) XXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING REQUESTED: YES 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request for his “Not Applicable” Entry Level Separation (ELS) to be upgraded to honorable. 

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a former Air Force airman (E-2).  

On 26 Oct 84, the Board considered and denied his request for a discharge upgrade; finding the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.  The Board agreed with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Staff and found no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

On 11 Apr 17, the Board reconsidered and denied his request for a discharge upgrade; finding the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered changing the character of service; however, did not find the evidence presented sufficient to recommend granting relief at that time. 

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibits D and F. 

On 6 Mar 21, the applicant requested reconsideration to upgrade his discharge.  He again contends the information on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is incorrect and does not accurately reflect his service record; it is confusing and mischaracterizes his actual service.  It has negative implications; he performed exceptionally well in every module and had no performance issues on his record.  Before his discharge, he was recovering from an injury which was incurred during his training, requiring major surgery.  He was immediately discharged and denied critical and much needed medical care.  He was frequently harassed and suffered prejudicial treatment; he feels his separation was due to racial discrimination.  In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant submitted the following new evidence: (1) Medical Records; (2) Report on Racial Bias in the Military; and (3) Article on Thoracic Surgery Pain Management. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit L.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

On 25 Jul 18, the Under Secretary of Defense issued supplemental guidance (Wilke Memo) to military corrections boards in determining whether relief is warranted based on equity, injustice, or clemency.  These standards authorize the board to grant relief in order to ensure fundamental fairness.  Clemency refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and is a part of the broad authority Boards have to ensure fundamental fairness.  This guidance applies to more than clemency from sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  Each case will be assessed on its own merits.  The relative weight of each principle and whether the principle supports relief in a particular case, are within the sound discretion of each Board.  In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, the Board should refer to the supplemental guidance, paragraphs 6 and 7. 

The entire guidance can be found at Exhibit H.

According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, incorporating changes through 8 Jun 17, paragraph 1.18, the types of service characterization are as follows: 

Honorable.  The quality of the airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

Under Honorable Conditions (General).  If an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, this characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record.

Under Other than Honorable Conditions.  When basing the reason for separation on a pattern of behavior or one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.  The member must have an opportunity for a hearing by an administrative discharge board or request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

Entry Level Separation.  Airmen are in entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of continuous active military service after a break of more than 92 days of active service.  Determine the member's status by the date of notification; thus, if the member is in entry level status when initiating the separation action, describe it as an entry level separation unless: 

•	A service characterization of under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for discharge and is warranted by the circumstances of the case; or 

•	The Secretary of the Air Force determines, on a case-by-case basis, that characterization as honorable is clearly warranted by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge finding that the discharge processing, as well as the narrative reasoning for separation, were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The applicant noted he was convalescing from an injury incurred in field training when he was “railroaded” out of the Air Force.  After an in-depth review of what was submitted with the application, that statement is not backed-up with proof of evidence.  His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 28 Apr 83 stated, “on or about 27 Apr 83, while out in the field, during a training exercise, you were observed by [two staff sergeants] to have a “twig” pushed through your left ear lobe.”  As written, it appeared to be a self-approved or self-inflicted condition and the date of occurrence does not correlate with any degree of “convalescence” when the actual discharge occurred in mid Jul 83.  An additional concern from the applicant indicated a very vague and unclear reason as to why the commander was recommending his discharge from service.  To this medical advisor, it remains quite clear that the disciplinary history of the applicant was paramount in the commander’s decision as evidenced by the additional word of “conduct” in the narrative reason for discharge.  The applicant also petitioned to change the character of service from “not applicable” to “honorable” based upon inaccuracies.  To address this concern, one must first look at the narrative reason for separation.  In this case the narrative reason included entry level performance.  Air Force regulations have long maintained that an airman can be discharged under the provision of entry level performance and conduct if the discharge processing started during the first 180 days of continuous active military service.  In this case, the commander initiated separation proceedings on 5 May 83.  That particular date is exactly 155 days since entering military service. Therefore, a narrative reasoning for separation of entry level performance and conduct is appropriate in this case.  That particular reason for separation also negates any descriptive term for use under character of service; hence, “not applicable” is appropriate.  Lastly, as for the notion that he was railroaded out of service while still recovering from surgery, that too is inaccurate.  His separation process began early in the year and he remained in service until he recovered post-operatively, was released from surgical services, and deemed worldwide qualified; therefore, his condition was not unfitting for continued service.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit I.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 4 Nov 21 for comment (Exhibit J), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board acknowledges the applicant’s contention that he was harassed, suffered prejudicial treatment, and that his separation was due to racial discrimination; however, other than his own assertions, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to support this claim.  Lastly, the Board considered granting clemency to the new evidence submitted by the applicant; however, it is not sufficient to overturn the previous Board’s decision.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-1984-03763-3 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 22:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit D:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-C, dated 26 Oct 84.
Exhibit F:	Addendum Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibit E, dated 11 Apr 17.
Exhibit G:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 6 Mar 21.
Exhibit H: Letter to Applicant, SAF/MRBC (Clemency Guidance), dated 5 Oct 21.
Exhibit I:	Advisory Opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 3 Nov 21. 
Exhibit J:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 4 Nov 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.