RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03434 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through counsel, the applicant contends he was only eighteen years old when he joined the Air Force and while serving he was a Munitions Maintenance Specialist. During his career he was awarded the Air Force Longevity Service Award and Air Force Good Conduct Medal. He served five years of his six year obligation before being discharged. Throughout his military service, he had positive performance evaluations. The only complaints his superiors expressed during his otherwise commendable term of service regarded isolated incidents of off-duty conduct involving alcohol or marijuana use. His records lack any specific explanation for his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. The narrative reason for separation listed on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, merely states “Request for discharge for the good of the service.” He had an alcohol related off- duty incident while stationed in Korea. He was intoxicated and got into an argument with a taxi cab driver; which, resulted in an overnight incarceration, but the cab driver did not press charges. After the incident, he was told by his commanding officer that he would be court martialed if he did not request an administrative discharge and he acquiesced as a result of the threat. The Air Force did not follow proper procedures when he was discharged. Air Force Manual 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-79 of the Manual provides: “Rights of Airman – Prior to the submission of a resignation or request for discharge for the good of the service, the airman will be afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel. In addition, airmen will be advised of the effect of discharge under other than honorable conditions.” He was never afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel or anyone else to advise him of the negative consequences of requesting a discharge under these circumstances. In contrast, the applicant was intimidated into requesting the discharge by the threat of court martial. He had no understanding of the effects that a discharge under conditions other than honorable would have, among other things, on his future eligibility to receive education and other military benefits. It would be unjust if the Board does not upgrade his discharge status. He is not in a position to judge the decision made by his chain of command approximately 34 years after the fact, nor does he intend to do so. He regrets the youthful off-duty mistakes that he made while serving in the Air Force. His mistakes were a sign of his immaturity. He is now a law-abiding/well respected member of his community and a dedicated family man. His post-service personal and professional accomplishments over the past several decades should serve as an independent basis for upgrading his discharge status. He is currently ineligible for educational benefits based upon his discharge of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. This severely impacts his ability to pursue his goal of obtaining a higher level of education. Moreover, his discharge status, as a matter of principle, should reflect the dedicated family man, loyal/hardworking employee and beloved community leader that he is today. In support of this request, the applicant’s counsel submits a copy of AF Form 909, Airman Performance Report, which closed out 12 Jun 80, a copy of the applicant’s DD Form 214, excerpts of AFM 39-12, dated 25 Sep 81, a copy of the applicant’s Certificate of Marriage, dated 23 Apr 83, and three letters of recommendation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul 75. The information below was extracted from the applicant’s Master Personnel Record (MPR); missing from his MPR was any documentation related to an administrative discharge. On 23 Oct 75, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for operating a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit, a violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was ordered to forfeit $35.00 per month for two months and to perform extra duty for a period of seven days. The portion of the punishment which provided for extra duties was suspended. On 15 Apr 76, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for wrongfully possessing marijuana, a violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was reduced in grade to airman and ordered to forfeit $201.00 per month for two months. On 12 Sep 78 the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for disrespectful language towards a superior Noncommissioned Officer, a violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was reduced in grade to airman and ordered to forfeit $100.00 per month for two months. On 9 Apr 80, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for unlawfully striking a person, a violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was reduced in grade to airman first class, ordered to forfeit $50.00 and restricted to the limits of the installation for a period of 30 days. The portion of the punishment which provided for the reduction in grade was suspended. On 16 Apr 80, the applicant’s supervisor non-recommended him for reenlistment based on his off-duty activities. On 25 Apr 80, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment based on his off-duty activities. The applicant acknowledged the commander’s decision and opted not to appeal. On 28 May 80, the applicant’s suspended reduction in grade to airman first class was vacated for wrongfully using provoking and reproachful words towards a Commissioned Officer. On 2 Sep 80, the applicant was furnished an Under Other Than Honorable discharge, and was credited with five years, two months, and one day of active service. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicated that on the basis of the information provided, they were unable to locate an arrest record. 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. Based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge and available evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments. However, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to consider clemency at this time. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2014-03434 in Executive Session on 25 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03434 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Clemency Information Bulletin. Exhibit D. FBI Report, dated 3 May 15.