RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03944 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) imposed on 12 Aug 80, be set aside and removed from his records. 2. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge was based on one incident and should have no bearing on his change to an honorable discharge. The applicant states “parties and alcohol were continual occurrences in base dorms so anything or incident that happened was not my fault.” He also states, “The Article 15 I received pertaining to returning one day late from leave was not my fault as the Air Force mistakenly wrote down the wrong leave days.” The applicant provides no rationale as to why his untimely application should be considered. In support of his requests, the applicant provides a copy of 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 15 Dec 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 1 Dec 80, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for Rehabilitation Program. The specific reasons for the discharge action included disorderly in quarters, being absent from his appointed place of duty, possession of marijuana, disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer and damage to government property, all in violation of various articles of the UCMJ; for which he received NJP under Article 15, reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, and extra duty. Before recommending discharge, the commander noted the applicant had been counseled numerous times, issued letters of reprimand, given Article 15s and nonrecommended for promotion; however all attempts at rehabilitation were met with negative results. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge. After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 11 Dec 80, an evaluation officer reviewed the case file and determined the applicant desired to be discharged and to have the recommended general (under honorable conditions) discharge upgraded to honorable. However, based upon his findings, the evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force and be furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. On 31 Dec 80, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. On 7 Jan 81, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. On 12 Jan 81, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct – Frequent Involvement with Civil/Military Authorities with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman basic. He served 2 years and 28 days of total active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant seeks relief in the form of a different basis for discharge, but his actions constituted misconduct and a general (under honorable conditions) discharge is an appropriate characterization. The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board should overturn the commander’s original NJP decisions on the basis of injustice or insufficient evidence. It is the applicant’s burden to provide the Board with evidence to support his claims. The applicant provides no evidence to rebut any of the Article 15 actions from 1979-1980 other than his own statement that “parties and alcohol were continual occurrences in base dorms so anything or incident that happened was not my fault.” He also states, “The Article 15 I received pertaining to returning one day late from leave was not my fault as the Air Force mistakenly wrote down the wrong leave days.” The applicant had the opportunity to present evidence to his commander regarding his Article 15 for being disorderly in quarters, but he chose not to submit any response. Again, he chose not to submit a response when he received an Article 15 for being absent without leave and also when he received an Article 15 for possession of marijuana. The commander issuing the Article 15 would have been in the best position to determine if there was mitigating evidence, but the applicant, who was given the opportunity to speak with defense counsel, waived his right to submit information. The commander’s ultimate decision on the NJP actions were reviewed on multiple levels for legal sufficiency and it was determined that the commander’s decisions were rooted in firm evidence and the punishment decisions was well within the limits of the commander’s authority and direction. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Dec 14, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. 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 found 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 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 infractions which led to his administrative separation we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted. 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. 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-2014-03944 in Executive Session on 12 May 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 14, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 14.