RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05756 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the discharge was unfair and not a true reflection of his character of service. He served honorably throughout his time in the service. He received an Article 15 for failing to use a technical order while performing a visual inspection of a plane. He was told by a senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) that he was not being graded during the assessment and that is the reason he feels he was treated unfairly; he failed that portion of the inspection. Another incident happened during his participation in a mandatory physical training. He received an LOR for not running during the run portion of the test regardless of having a profile. Bottom line, he believes if these two examples of unwarranted and biased issues had not been placed in his record he would not have been discharged for a Pattern of Misconduct. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of character statements. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 14 Feb 01. The applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a pattern of misconduct. The specific reason for this action was for reporting late for duty on several occasions; failing to perform a safety check using Technical Order 005-1; being drunk on duty and reporting late; and for failing to obey a lawful order. He received two LORs and two Article 15s for his actions. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. On 10 March 2009, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge concluding that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was with the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant received a general (UHC) discharge on 15 Jun 05 after serving 4 years, 4 months, and 3 days on active duty. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant contends that his discharge was unfair and not a true reflection of his character of service; however, he was discharged for a pattern of misconduct and not an isolated incident of misconduct that resulted in two LORs and two Article 15s. Therefore, based on the documentation in the applicant’s records, he clearly had acts of misconduct to form the basis of his discharge. Further, the applicant’s discharge to include his characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He requests a personal hearing before the Board at his own personal expense because he truly feels that an injustice has been done by not upgrading his discharge. The applicant’s complete submission 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. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct. In addition, we are not persuaded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade to honorable on the basis of clemency. Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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-2012-05756 in Executive Session on 12 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary for Docket Number BC-2012-05756 evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. Panel Chair