RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03303

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Narrative Reason for Separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “Misconduct” to “Financial Irresponsibility.”

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 8 Jan 97, he was discharged from the Air Force with service characterized as “under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  In 2009, he appealed and his characterization was upgraded to under honorable conditions (general).  As a result of the upgrade of his discharge, he was able to enter the Army and has served honorably.  

He was recently selected for a unit vacancy promotion and underwent assignment selection and was told that due to his first DD Form 214 stating “Misconduct,” he was not authorized to be assigned to certain positions.

The narrative reason for separation on his first DD Form 214 is preventing him from being chosen for higher level assignments/jobs while in the Army National Guard.  He further contends this situation is hurting his career in the Army and could result in his career as a competitive commissioned officer coming to a halt. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Dec 94, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force.

On 18 Nov 96, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of Misconduct –Dishonorable Failure to Pay Just Debts.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were from 23 Jun 95 through 23 Jun 96, the applicant uttered 73 checks with insufficient funds, had delinquent payment of debts, failure to attend training, for which he received verbal counseling, five Letters of Counseling (LOC), a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and an Article 15.

On 18 Nov 96, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. In addition, on the same date, the applicant submitted an unconditional waiver of his discharge board hearing rights.

On 16 Dec 96, the legal office reviewed the discharge package and found it legally sufficient to support separation.

On 17 Dec 96, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s waiver, approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 

On 8 Jan 97, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge, and was credited with 2 years and 25 days of active service.   

The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to a general discharge.  On 27 Jul 09, the AFDRB considered and granted the requested relief.  

His character of service was upgraded to under honorable conditions (General) discharge and he was issued a new DD Form 214.

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/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  DP2STM notes the applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been 18 years since the applicant’s discharge.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code and narrative reason for separation 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.

Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s misconduct were clearly outlined by his commander.  The base discharge authority determined that the multiple instances of failure to pay just debts constituted a pattern of misconduct subject to discharge.  DP2STM concurs with the discharge authority’s conclusion, therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated.  Due to the length of time since discharge, DP2STM recognizes that the board could consider granting the applicant’s request based on clemency.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-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 4 Apr 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 exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely.  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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  The Board notes the applicant has received some relief through an upgrade of his service characterization from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and we commend the applicant on his post-service accomplishments.  Nonetheless, we find no evidence that warrants a change of the narrative reason for separation.  We note the applicant’s contention that the narrative reason for separation on his first DD Form 214 is preventing him from being chosen for higher level assignments/jobs while in the Army National Guard.  However, the applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to believe the narrative reason for separation was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-2015-03303 in Executive Session on 23 Jun 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03303 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, A AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 4 Dec 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 16.