RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02058

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was treated unfairly by his commander.  Specifically, due to his sexual orientation, his commander harassed him by occasionally directing inappropriate jokes towards him.  Also, his commander showed preference for individuals that had relatives who were commissioned officers.  Although these individuals, along with him, were charged with the same offense of underage drinking, they were only given Letters of Reprimand (LOR).  

He has worked full time, completed college, and not involved in any sort of crimes since his discharge from the Air Force.  He is certain that the character of his discharge was partially based upon his sexual orientation and his commander’s homophobia, rather than the offense of underage drinking. 

He applied to the discharge review board more than a decade ago and unfortunately was unable to appear in person due to illness.  Their decision may have been different had he actually been able to appeal before the board. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 19 February 1997.  

On 17 November 1998, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct, specifically conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The reasons for the action were as follows:
	a)  On 3 April 1998, the applicant was verbally counseled twice for failing to present valid proof of vehicle insurance and for driving with an expired vehicle registration.  

	b)  On 2 September 1998, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and an unfavorable information file (UIF) was initiated for his failure to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age of twenty-one.  

 	c)  On 26 October 1998, the applicant received a vacation action on his suspended punishment he previously received under Article 15,UCMJ, for failure to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age of twenty-one.  

On 17 November 1998, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and, after consulting with legal counsel, submitted a statement in his own behalf.  

On 25 November 1998, the case was found to be legally sufficient.

On 1 December 1998, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  

On 4 December 1998, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 16 days of active service.   

On 7 December 1999, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  

On 21 July 2015, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  In response, the applicant submitted a letter from his former supervisor and a Community College certificate of completion.  He indicated that he was awaiting a response from his background check (Exhibit D).

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 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 process.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge for a pattern of misconduct 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 his service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the limited documentation related to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service sufficient to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  Additionally, we noted the applicant contends that his character of service was partially based upon his sexual orientation and his commander’s unfair treatment, rather than the offenses committed; however, other than his own uncorroborated assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence to indicate the commander abused his discretionary authority or the character of service was disproportionate to the misconduct which formed the basis of the discharge.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

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-2015-02058 in Executive Session on 3 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02058 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 2015.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 July 2015, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 August 2015, 
                 w/atchs.