RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00892 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1) His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2) His narrative reason for separation be changed. 3) His separation code be changed. 4) His reentry code be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The circumstances surrounding his discharge were unjust and inequitable. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a 4-page personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and other supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 April 1988. On 1 August 1991, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions in accordance with Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. Specifically, the applicant received two Article 15s, two Letters of Reprimand, an Individual Counseling and an Unfavorable Information File. The applicant acknowledged his right to consult counsel and submit matters; which he did. His defense counsel also submitted a statement on his behalf. The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the case on 15 October 1991 and recommended the discharge authority exclude the first Article 15 that the applicant received. However, the SJA still opined the additional incidents were legally sufficient to support discharge with a general service characterization. In an undated memorandum, the separation authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. His narrative reason for separation was misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, and his separation code was listed at JKN. His reentry code was listed as 2B (approved involuntary separation with less than honorable discharge). He was credited with serving 3 years, 6 months and 21 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia was unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of information furnished. ________________________________________________________________ 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, or unduly harsh. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00892 in Executive Session on 9 August 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 10. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Panel Chair