RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00699 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Time In Service (TIS) be extended to two years. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not informed that he could have appealed his discharge. The basis of his appeal is that the paperwork he submitted to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) was not forwarded to the discharge panel. The applicant provides no documents in support of his request. His complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Nov 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 14 Sep 1983, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reason for this action was his failure to meet minimum standards of duty performance and military bearing. On 14 Sep 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and that his failure to consult with counsel or to submit statements will constitute a waiver of his right to do so. On 14 Sep 1983, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged without probation and rehabilitation. On 3 Oct 1983, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the discharge legally sufficient. On 12 Oct 1983, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10. His narrative reason for separation was “Unsatisfactory Performance.” He served 1 year, 10 months and 14 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that the applicant's discharge was based on his unsatisfactory performance and his refusal to regain and maintain minimum standards of duty performance and military bearing. The discharge record reveals the applicant was counseled and afforded an opportunity to improve his performance, but was met with negative results. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. His TIS should not be extended to two years. The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an eight page statement, the applicant asserts that at the time of his discharge, he was informed that he could use the resources of the Area Defense Counsel (ADC). The ADC told him that he could submit a statement that would be included with his discharge package. The ADC told him that they would type out his statement as long as it was submitted by a certain date. He believes the ADC received his statement before the deadline, but he is not certain. A few weeks later, he was informed that he was being discharged and he began his out-processing. He went back to the ADC, so that he could get a copy of his statement. However, the ADC informed him that his statement was not included in the discharge package because it was too long. He cannot determine whether his statement would have had any bearing on his discharge or retention in the service. However, it was his right to include a statement in his discharge package. He may have achieved two years TIS had there been a further review of his discharge. His rebuttal also addresses the reasons for his discharge. His rights, in relation to his discharge were violated and it has not been until recently that he became aware that he could correct this oversight. His complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 in the discharge processing. While the applicant argues that his rights were violated, 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. Moreover, the applicant acknowledged his rights in the Receipt of Notice of Proposed Discharge letter dated 14 Sep 1983. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient 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 in 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 15 Oct 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2013-00699: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 5 Feb 2013. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 2 Apr 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. Panel Chair 2 2