RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00128 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 7 June 2013, he was notified the Air Force Discharge Review Board’s (AFDRB) determined by majority decision to deny his request for upgrade of his discharge. He was unaware there was an injustice or error when he appeared before the AFDRB. Another airman who entered the Air Force on the same day and was discharged on the same day for the same reason was granted an upgrade of his discharge by the AFDRB. He and his parents traveled to Andrews AFB, MD from Boston, MA to appear in person for the AFDRB while the other airman’s hearing was done via Skype. The AFDRB ruling was inequitable and inconsistent in comparison to another case in which the infractions were virtually identical. His commander failed to notify him of his intention to impose Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP), the nature of the alleged misconduct or his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including a right to a hearing and representation. After the first of two incidents of underage drinking that resulted in an Article 15, his commander did not notify him of his rights before imposing punishment. Had he known of his rights to a hearing and representation, the resulting record may have been different which in turn could have prevented his discharge. He will always regret the poor decisions he made in the two incidents of underage drinking. He was only 20 years old and thousands of miles from home having a beer with friends. Aside from these two incidents he is proud of his service and provides a letter of support from his training officer. He cannot agree with the AFDRB that these two incidents categorized as minor disciplinary infractions outweigh his positive contributions or appropriately characterizes his term of service. It has been over 7 years now and he has paid a heavy price. Without an honorable discharge and eligibility for the GI Bill, he is financially unable to pursue a college degree. His less than honorable discharge has been a major factor in his inability to get a job as a firefighter despite his Air Force training. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and letters of support. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 November 2005, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and was discharged on 23 May 2007 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for “Misconduct.” He was credited with 1 year, 6 months and 3 days of active duty service. On 4 February 2015, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a response. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. On 9 May 2007, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge for misconduct, specifically, minor disciplinary infractions. The commander recommended a general (under honorable conditions) discharge based on the applicant receiving two Article 15’s for consuming alcohol while under the legal age of 21 and while in the base dormitory. The applicant acknowledged the notification and was given an appointment to seek legal counsel and the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf. The legal office found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant’s records indicate he was afforded every opportunity to overcome his deficiencies, however, the unit’s efforts proved unsuccessful. The commander concluded he exhibited disregard for Air Force standards and dedication to duty by failing to obey the rules and regulations set forth in the UCMJ and civil law. His repeat offense demonstrated a lack of discipline and indicated he was either unwilling or unable to correct his behavior. DPSOR concurs with the commander’s conclusion. Therefore, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are correct and In Accordance With (IAW) DOD and Air Force instructions. His service characterization is also correct as indicated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 1.18.2, indicates that this type of characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman’s military career. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP states there are no legal or equitable basis for upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Additionally, the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The applicant states that his discharge was inequitable and that the AFDRB was inconsistent in its ruling as a similar case resulted in an upgrade to honorable. Although some cases may have similarities, the outcome of the hearing may differ. The AFDRB determines equity based upon the individual merits of each application and is not bound by prior decisions in its review of subsequent cases. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 August 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 timely filed. 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of his service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record for the short duration of his service and the limited post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on that basis is warranted. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2015-00128 in Executive Session on 1 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence in AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2015-00128 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 January 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 February 2015, w/atch. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 February 2015. Exhibit E. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 August 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 August 2015.