RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03063

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 he received was unjust, with no evidence.  He was not given the correct information, or at least, unable to understand the consequences due to his young age.  His duty performance was always tip top, all his problems were derived from off-duty young man mistakes.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 02.

On 30 Nov 05, the applicant was denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 3 May 05 to 1 Nov 05 in accordance with AFI 36-2803, Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program.

On 28 Dec 05, the applicant was rendered a referral enlisted performance report (EPR) with an overall rating of “2.”  The reasons for the referral report were: “Unacceptable” rating for his conduct on/off duty, “Ineffective” rating for how he sets and enforces standards-displays initiative and self-confidence, fosters teamwork; below average performer, failed to show for multiple training sessions, received an Article 15 for violation of Article 86, Failure to Go to appointed place of duty. 

On 28 Apr 06, according to AFPC/DPSOR SEP, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge with an under honorable conditions (General) service characterization.

On 9 May 06, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, and was credited with three years, eleven months, and nineteen days of active service.   

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 C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The application was not filed within three years of the discovery of the alleged error or injustice, or with due diligence, should have been discovered.  It is not in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.  Notwithstanding the above, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant’s commander notified him on 28 Apr 06 that he was recommending him for discharge with an under honorable conditions (General) service characterization.  The reason for discharge was:  

1.  On or about 9 Feb 03, he allowed another Airman to operate his motorcycle knowing that the Airman did not have a proper license or motorcycle safety training.  For this incident, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

2.  On or about 3 Oct 05, and again on or about 11 Oct 05, he failed to report for duty at the reported time.  For these incidents he received an Article 15 with punishment consisting of a reduction in grade to Airman First Class (A1C) (suspended through 30 Apr 06), forfeiture of $385 in pay, 14 days extra duty, and a reprimand.  

3.  On or about 5 Apr 06, he again failed to report for duty at the appointed time.  For this incident he received vacation of the suspended punishment to A1C, and was given a new date of rank (DOR) of 18 Apr 06.  

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements on his own behalf.  The base legal authority reviewed the package and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed he be separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  They opine the service characterization, narrative reason for separation and the separation program designator (SPD) code are correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 11 Jan 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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.  In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  In this respect, the Air Force Discharge Review Board has the authority to examine an applicant’s administrative discharge and to change the characterization of service or the reason for discharge based on standards of equity or propriety.  In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating that said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03063 in Executive Session on 19 May 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03063 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 15, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated 24 Nov 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 16.