RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03063 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was inequitable because he was young and immature. This was his first time away from home and he was influenced by the overseas environment that allowed him to experience and abuse sex, and alcohol substances, that impaired his judgment. He believes the unhappiness and loneliness he felt from being so far from home and the isolation from his fellow airmen played a role in him making bad decisions and using poor judgment considering he was under the age of 21. He was under the impression that his general discharge would automatically be upgraded to honorable after so many years until he found out otherwise. The applicant did not provide any supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Oct 88 for a period of four years. The squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for misconduct, specifically, pattern discreditable involvement with military and civilian authorities. The underlying basis for this action was a series of disciplinary infractions committed by the applicant. Specifically, for two acts of misconduct: 1) He received an Article 15 for committing an indecent assault upon a female servicemember and for unlawfully entering the dormitory room of two fellow servicemembers. For these offenses, his punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman basic and 30 days of correctional custody; and, 2) He received an Article 15 for unlawfully assaulting and battering another servicemember by choking her with his hands. His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman basic, forfeiture of $362.00 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction to the base, and a reprimand. After consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The deputy wing staff judge advocate recommended a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The discharge authority approved the general discharge, without P&R. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, on 13 Feb 91, in the grade of airman basic. His service was characterized as general (under honorable conditions), with a reason for separation of misconduct, pattern discreditable involvement with military and civilian authorities. He was credited with 2 years, 3 months, and 17 days of active duty service, including 1 year, 9 months, and 5 days of foreign service. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. On 8 Oct 10, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for comment. At that time, he was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit D). However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Considering the applicant’s overall record of service, the FBI Report of Investigation, and the lack of post service information since his discharge, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted. 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-2010-03063 in Executive Session on 19 April 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 10. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 10, w/atchs.