RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03216 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He accepts full responsibility for his misconduct. Based on character and post discharge service he has grown as a man and civil servant. While at technical training school at Sheppard AFB, TX, he started hanging out with older people and partying more than he should. After six months, his retention in the Air Force was coming into question as his grades were barely passing and he had been in trouble for being late to class and reporting late to duty. In Jan 1998, he was approached with the option to leave the Air Force without further damage to his records. At the time, he did not realize he was giving up on his future and did not understand the ramifications of his actions. Since leaving the service, he has completed a bachelor’s degree and was employed with an investment banking firm. He obtained many licensures and certifications and was promoted into management but was laid off when the company was sold. He then completed undergraduate accounting courses at the University of District of Columbia and was hired at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association as an accounting technician and was later hired as a full-time accountant with the U.S. Census Bureau. It has been fifteen years since he joined the Air Force at the age of seventeen. He has grown to understand the fundamental skills the Air Force tried to instill in him. The lessons learned over 15 years ago are the reasons he is asking for his discharge to be upgraded. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 16 Jul 1997, the applicant entered active duty. On 21 Jan 1998, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reasons for the discharge recommendation include an Article 15 for failure to obey an order to remain on base and for failure to return and remain in his assigned dormitory from 2400 to 0400 hours, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for consuming alcohol while under the age of 21, failure to follow a lawful order by not reporting to a Military Training Leader as instructed to do so, a LOR for violating a lawful general instruction by smoking in uniform during the duty day and a record of individual counseling for not obeying a lawful order by smoking in his room. On 21 Jan 1998, the applicant acknowledged the notification of recommendation for discharge, waived his right to consult counsel and declined to submit statements in his own behalf. On 26 Jan 1998, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. On 2 Feb 1998, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge. On 3 Feb 1998, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.” He served 6 months and 18 days on active duty. On 4 Apr 2013, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge. The DRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. In view of the findings, the DRB further concluded that there was no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of the discharge. On 4 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ 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 during the discharge process. 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, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the post-service documentation provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 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 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- 2013-03216 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentation was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2014, w/atch. Chair 1