RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01021 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his punishment he was not given any assistance to save his career. He pursued help from his superiors, first sergeant, command, and counsel to remove the problem; however, he received no support. He became very frustrated and disappointed and this started his downward spiral of losing faith, morale, and confidence in his military structure. He did not use good judgment and said and did things that were outside his normal behavior. His military record prior to the incident reflects that of a model airman. He would like to clear his record and his discharge upgraded to honorable based on the career he had prior to the incident. In support of his request, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 Nov 83, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. On 11 Sep 89, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The basis for the proposed action were: 1) On 15 Aug 89, his wife gave a statement to a Family Advocacy Officer that she had been physically abused by the applicant beginning shortly after they were married some five years earlier; 2) On 30 Aug 89, he received an Article 15 for unlawfully striking his wife on the arms, back and face with his hands and fists, the punishment imposed was a reduction in grade to airman first class; and 3) On 1 Sep 89, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to obey a lawful order given to him by his commander to stay away from his spouse until the situation at home was resolved. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, offered a conditional waiver contingent upon receipt of no less than a general discharge. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended that he receive a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 22 Sep 89, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct-Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, and received a general discharge. He served on active duty for a period of 5 years, 9 months and 28 days. On 16 Oct 13, a request for information pertaining to his post- service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). To date, a response has not been received. ________________________________________________________________ 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, the applicant provides no 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-2013-01021 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 Oct 13. Panel Chair