RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01274 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He does not believe his character of service was necessarily in error. Two years prior to his enlistment, he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and was taking ritalin to correct his medical condition. He did not realize the effects of not taking his medication would have on his ability to perform military standards. He regrets having failed as a member of the Air Force. He has been employed as an electrician for 15 years, raised 3 children on his own and is currently taking classes to become a master electrician. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 June 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 26 May 1992, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen for Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. For a full list of the offenses, see the commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B. On 28 May 1992, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. On 1 June 1992, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the applicant be discharged for Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. In an undated letter, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. On 3 June 1992, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman basic. He served 11 months and 15 days of total active service. _________________________________________________________________ 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 characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service and the events which precipitated the discharge, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-01274 in Executive Session on 9 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 March 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 1 2