RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01504 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected from “General, Under Honorable Conditions” to read character of service “Honorable.”

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A direct order from his superiors was given over the phone to a civilian (his wife) and not directly to him.

The	applicant’s	complete	submission,	with	attachments,	is	at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 Aug 87, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 26 Jul 93, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for unlawfully pushing his spouse and unlawfully biting her on the hand.

On 2 Aug 93, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled appointment and received Record of Counseling (ROC).

On 2 Mar 94, the applicant was non-recommended for reenlistment of the United Stated Air Force by his commander.

On 28 Mar 94, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for failure to obey a lawful order. The applicant received punishment of reduction in grade to airman first class (E-3) and a (suspended) forfeiture of $250.00 for 2 months.

On 18 Apr 94, the applicant was notified of discharge action.
On 9 May 94, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 6 years,
8 months, and 21 days of active service.

On 6 Jun 15, a request for post-service information  was forwarded  to  the applicant for review and response 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 responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit D

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s commander indicated that all rehabilitative efforts had been exhausted and that the applicant had been given every opportunity to improve his behavior. The applicant received two Article 15 actions plus a reduction in rank for a variety of offenses. The discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive. The base legal office found the discharge package legally sufficient and directed the applicant be discharged with a service characterization of under honorable conditions (General).

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM 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 5 Jan 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 applicant 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 find 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 the service was contrary to the provisions  of  the  governing  regulation,  unduly  harsh,  or
1.	

disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. 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-2015-01504 in Executive Session on 8 Mar 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 15.
Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 30 Dec 15. Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jan 16