RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01635 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Medical. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge should be changed in accordance with AFI 36-3212 to receive a medical discharge. This would allow him to have an honorable discharge. He provided various medical documents to show he was injured in the line of duty (LOD). He felt his discharge was influenced and his DD Form 214 is inaccurate. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 August 2005. On 23 August 2006, the applicant was referred to the Informal Physical Disability Evaluation Board (IPEB) for right knee pain. The IPED recommended discharge with severance pay and a disability rating of zero percent. Concurrently, the applicant was being processed for an administrative discharge. Per AFI 36-3212, Chapter 5.4; the case would be processed as a dual action case and forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC) for finalization. On 30 August 2006, AFPC/DPPD, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, directed that the member be separated from active service for physical disability with entitlement to severance pay. On 7 September 2006, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for Minor Disciplinary Infractions, under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Paragraph 5.49. The reasons for this action included the following: a. He received an Article 15, dated 23 March 2006, for failure to refrain from contributing alcohol to someone who was under the legal drinking age of 21. b. On 11 January 2006, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to return to the base prior to Phase III curfew. c. On 18 January 2006, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for hanging from the rafters of Huntman B-10 in an inebriated state, creating a safety hazard. On 7 September 2006, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to consult with counsel or submit statements on his behalf. On 13 September 2006, the action was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 3 November 2006, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, directed that the applicant’s administrative discharge for minor disciplinary actions be executed, thus terminating the processing of the applicant’s disability discharge. On 22 November 2006, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 2 months, and 29 days of active service. On 28 April 2014, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibilities (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits D and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPD/DPSOR recommends denial indicting the applicant failed to submit a timely application. It has been almost eight years since the events in question and the discharge, to include the separation program designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant was counseled and given several opportunities to adhere to military standards. The negative aspects of his conduct and performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his military record. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or the rating applied at the time of the board. The applicant met the IPEB on 23 August 2006 for right knee pain. The IPEB recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of zero percent. The applicant concurred with the medical recommendation. AFPC/DPFD was notified applicant was being processed for an administrative discharge. In accordance with AFI 36-3212, when a case is being processed for with a final recommendation of unfit and administrative action is pending, it is processed as a dual action and forwarded to SAFPC for finalization. The SAFPC memo, dated 3 November 2006, directed applicant be discharged by execution of the approved the applicant’s administrative discharge under AFI 36-3208 and terminated the disability discharge action under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 September 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-01635 in Executive Session on 2 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 2 May 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 29 May 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 14.