RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03175

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjust and his command conspired against him to discharge him from the Air Force.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 April 1978.

On 21 September 1983, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provision of AFR 39-10 - Pattern of Misconduct.  The specific reasons are as follow:

a.  On or about 30 November 1979, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for sleeping on duty.

b.  On or about 27 September 1980, the applicant received counseling for failure to control his pet.

c.  On or about 17 November 1980, the applicant received a letter of warning for failure to control his pet.

d.  On or about 25 April 1981, the applicant received counseling for an abandoned vehicle.

e.  On or about 2 July 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for an unpaid $100 returned check.

f.  On or about 26 July 1982, the applicant received verbal counseling for an unpaid $75 returned check. 

g.  On or about 5 August 1982, the applicant received verbal counseling for being in arrears to Sembach Air Base American Express Bank for $456.17. 

h.  On or about 25 February 1983, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for discreditable involvement with military and civilian authorities. 

i.  On or about 13 March 1981, the applicant received verbal counseling for being in arrears to Deutsche Bundepost, GE for 6,9968.11 DM (approximately $3,400 in U.S. currency).

j.  On or about 22 July 1983, the applicant received an LOC for a missed dental appointment. 

k.  On or about 23 August 1983, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to clear his government quarters.

On 21 September 1983, the applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel the applicant waived his right to submit a statement on his behalf.

On 17 October 1983, the acting staff judge advocate reviewed the discharge package and found it legally sufficient to support separation.

On 19 October 1983, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged.

On 27 October 1983, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 6 months, and 16 days of active service and 1 year, 7 months and 23 days of foreign 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 applicant contends that his chain of command conspired to discharge him from the service.  DPSOR is not in a position to either confirm or deny these allegations.  A review of the documentation contained in the applicant’s record shows that the commander indicated that every administrative rehabilitative method was used to turn the applicant around towards proper conduct of his duties and personal responsibilities.  Furthermore, the record shows that the applicant consulted with legal counsel and decided not to submit a statement in his own behalf to the base discharge authority for consideration.  Finally, after reviewing all of the documentation in the applicant’s record, DPSOR must conclude that the basis for discharge did exist at the time and both the narrative reason for separation and SPD code are correct as indicated.

The applicant’s commander recommended and the base discharge authority approved an Under Honorable Conditions (General) service characterization.  AFR 39-10 states that a general discharge service characterization is warranted when “significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the airman’s military record.” The discharge authority concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct outweighed any positive aspects of his military career.  Their office concurs with this conclusion, therefore, the service characterization is correct and in accordance with Air Force regulation.  Due to the length of time since discharge, their office recognizes that the board could consider granting the applicant’s request based on clemency. 

The applicant had not filed a timely petition.  It has been 32 years since the applicant’s discharge and he did not submit a valid reason for not filing a petition within three years of discharge.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR-SEP 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 25 February 2016 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 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 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 and narrative reason for separation was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  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-2015-03175 in Executive Session on 11 August 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03175 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 July 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated
  1 December 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 February 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.