RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-01101 INDEX CODE:	112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to an honorable to enable him to use Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His characterization of discharge prevents him from using MGIB benefits that he paid into.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or discharge From Active Duty, and a Report on Individual Personnel.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 July 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). He was progressively promoted to the rank of airman first class (E-3).

The applicant received three Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling and an Article 15 between the periods of 30 November 1987 and 20 September 1988 for actions of financial irresponsibility, interfering with a police investigation, being late to work, and failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. His Article
15 punishment consisted of reduction in grade to airman basic with a new date of rank of 23 September 1988, and forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months.

On 5 October 1988, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for a general discharge for “Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions” under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Paragraph 5-

46. The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intent, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 14 October 1988, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate and Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient.   On
17 October 1988, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s release from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation or rehabilitation.

On 19 October 1988, the applicant was released from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.”   He served 2 years,
2 months and 20 days on active duty.
On 7 July 2008, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit F).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report purportedly pertaining to the applicant. On 18 July 2008, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIT does not provide a recommendation; however, does provide information referencing the applicant’s eligibility to use MGIB benefits. DPSIT states the applicant elected to participate in the MGIB program upon his initial entry to active duty and made the $1,200 contribution. On 8 August 1986, he signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB) Basic Enrollment, acknowledging the statement of understanding and statement of enrollment establishing MGIB eligibility. Item 3F of the form indicates “I must receive an honorable discharge for service which established entitlement to the GI Bill of 1984.” Title 10 United States Code, Section 13011, Chapter 30, requires an individual to receive an honorable discharge for service which established entitlement to the GI Bill of 1984 as one of the conditions to receive MGIB benefits. Additionally, DD Form 2366, Item 3b, states “I must complete three years of service…” The applicant served 2 years, 2 months, and 20 days of active duty. Under certain situations, where the separation is for the convenience of the government, i.e., Secretarial Waiver, the time served can be reduced to 30 months to qualify for
36 months of benefits; however, in the applicant’s case, he served less than 27 months, and thus would not have served

enough time to establish MGIB eligibility. Finally, had the applicant qualified for benefits, there is a 10-year limitation from separation to use MGIB benefits as stated on DD Form 2366, item 3e.  Since the applicant separated on
19 October 1988, the ending period to use his benefits would have been 18 October 1998.

The DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records; his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The DPSOS evaluation 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 error or injustice. The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority. The character of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation appears to accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation and we do not find it to be in error or unjust. Consequently, since we find no error in his characterization of discharge, there is no reason to address his request to use MGIB benefits since he is not eligible to use them. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post- service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 September 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01101:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 08, w/atch. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 10 Apr 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 22 May 08. Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 08.
Exhibit F.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jul 08, w/atch. Exhibit G.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jul 08, w/atch.