RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03618 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In his first assignment he was placed in the transportation career field which according to his supervisor did not need or want any new people. He was pushed to the side and had to fend for himself. He developed a drinking problem during his first assignment and tried to get help. He is a good standing citizen in the community and country and has been alcohol free since his discharge. The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Jul 85, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. On 5 Aug 86, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct. The reasons for the proposed action were: 1) He received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for reporting for duty unshaven; 2) He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for again reporting for duty unshaven; 3) He received an Article 15 for reporting for duty as a vehicle operator while drunk; 4) He received a LOC for reporting late for duty; 5) He received a Letter of Unsatisfactory Performance for a list of violations; and 6) He received a LOR for reporting two hours late for duty. On 13 Aug 86, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, submitted statements in his own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended that he receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 9 Sep 86, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge (under honorable conditions) under the provisions of AFM 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct- Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. He served on active duty for a period of 1 year, 1 month, and 25 days. On 28 Feb 13, a request for information pertaining to his post- service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). In response to the request, the applicant reiterates his original contentions. He states that he was young and fell into the wrong crowd. He started drinking which caused him to report late for work. He tried to get help from his First Sergeant, and even asked to be placed in correctional custody and to lose a stripe, in lieu of discharge. He has been alcohol free since 1987. He attends church regularly and has been employed in the same job for almost 18 years. He understands he did wrong, but hopes the Board will consider an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and six character reference letters. His complete response, with attachments, 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. 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. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find sufficient evidence 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 Docket Number BC-2012-03618 in Executive Session on 18 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 12, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 13, w/atchs.