RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03316

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

His narrative reason for separation of “misconduct-pattern of minor disciplinary infractions” be changed to reflect a more positive narrative for separation.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records reflect an unjust account of his service.  The incident that led to his separation was not due to misconduct.  His service was only viewed and characterized by his minor problems.  The incident involving his discharge of a weapon was accidental and due to lack of training and experience.  The punishment that he received far outweighs the infractions, then and after his military service.  A punishment that has decreased opportunities for employment ever since.  His discharge should be changed to correct an injustice of the character of his service to the United States and its people.  

He has served his country for about 20 years and honorably discharged from the National Guard.  Even though he served with honor, he is still haunted by his discharge from the Air Force, which has more weight than the Guard service.  Also, he has achieved academic success by completing associate degrees.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 November 1983.

On 29 January 1988, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for the action included the following:

	a)  On 17 May 1985, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being found asleep on post, in violation of Article 113, UCMJ.  

	b)  On 19 June 1985, the applicant received vacation action of his suspended NJP for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86.  

	c)  On 29 July 1986, the applicant received NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ for unlawfully striking a non-commissioned officer in the face with his fist, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ.  

	d)  On 21 December 1987, the applicant received NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ for negligently discharging a service rifle in the clearing area at the Security Police Armory, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  

On 2 February 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, consulted legal counsel, and elected not to submit written matters on his behalf.  

On 9 February 1988, the case was found to be legally sufficient.  

On 10 February 1988, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  

On 26 February 1988, the applicant was issued a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions,” along with a separation code of “JKN” (misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions), and reenlistment code (RE) of “2B” (discharged under general or other-than-honorable conditions).  He was credited with 4 years, 3 months, and 10 days active service.  

On 1 December 2015, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for comment.  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 memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits D and E.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  There was no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  The applicant’s commander and base discharge authority determined that a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was more appropriate than an honorable.  In accordance with Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, a general discharge service characterization is warranted when the airman’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the airman’s military record.  In the applicant’s brief military career, he managed to receive three Article 15 actions for a variety of offenses and was given ample opportunity to correct his behavior, which met with no success.  Both the command and the discharge authority concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct outweighed any positive aspects of his brief military career.  Therefore, the service characterization, narrative reason for separation and the SPD code are correct and in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force instructions.  Therefore, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  The applicant has not carried his burden of showing that his records are erroneous or unjust.  His description of the circumstances of the weapon discharge add context to his records, but does not change the fact that his commander found him guilty of the incident via non-judicial punishment proceedings.  That Article 15, along with the other instances of misconduct outlined in his records provides a sufficient basis for administrative discharge and does not reflect service that should be characterized as “honorable”.  Also, at the time of the applicant’s misconduct, AFR 39-10 was in effect, which provides for discharge of members who commit misconduct.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 2 February 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  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 agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Additionally, we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  However, should the applicant decide to submit documentation related to his post-service activities; we may reconsider his request based on new evidence.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  

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-2015-03316 in Executive Session on 10 March 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03316 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 July 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 December 2015, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 December 2015.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 19 January 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 February 2016.