RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04909 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, character of service reflect an honorable discharge rather than general (under honorable conditions). 2. His DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge Certificate, reflect a discharge date of 20 September 1973 rather than 29 October 1972. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 and DD Form 256AF are in error. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and DD Form 256AF. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 4 October 1972 and was honorably discharged on 29 October 1972. On 30 October 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12. The specific reasons were the applicant’s inability to properly adjust to military life and the inability to expend efforts constructively. An evaluation officer reviewed the case and recommended the applicant be discharged with service characterized as general. The evaluation officer stated the applicant had been absent without leave (AWOL), failed to report for duty at the proper time, refused to obey a lawful order of his section commander and admitted to stealing merchandise. He received counseling, verbal reprimands and punishment under Article 15. His loss of productivity was due to his complete negative attitude toward military life, failing to exert any effort to conform or adapt and failing to correct his unsuitable conduct and behavior. He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a general discharge. The applicant was discharged on 20 September 1973. He served 10 months and 9 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states when determining punishment, the commander has full authority to consider all circumstances which surround the offenses and select a punishment that will be meaningful to the member given those circumstances. During the applicant’s active duty service he acted in a manner inconsistent with Air Force standards of good order and discipline by demonstrating an extreme lack of integrity. There appears to be little to gain from the Air Force standpoint in retaining the applicant because of his apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively and because of his limited potential for successful completion of further military service. The commander’s administrative discharge and the applicant’s separation code were applied appropriately. In accordance with AFI 36-3202, Section B, Paragraph 2.1, DD Form 256AF Honorable Discharge, is used to discharge members who separate from the Air Force with an honorable characterization and not released to the Reserve components. The members who fulfill their obligation with the reserve forces are issued this certificate when discharged with an honorable service characterization. Since the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge he would not have been issued a DD Form 256AF. The applicant has not filed a timely petition; it has been more than 30 years since the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force. The applicant did not justify why the alleged error or injustice was not addressed within three years from date of discharge. There is no automatic correction simply for the passage of time, nor did the applicant provide any evidence of an error or injustice regarding his separation code or narrative reason for separation. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his separation code or narrative reason for separation. 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 manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 January 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-04909 in Executive Session on 11 July 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 October 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 December 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 January 2013.