RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2015-03346
		
						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

No negative counseling statements were ever signed or presented to him.  His separation was based on an event of unsatisfactory performance; all his performance records (enlisted performance reports) indicate that he was nothing but an exemplary Airman.  He had one issue that he managed to overcome during his service.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 Jul 80.

On 15 Oct 84, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge for irresponsibility in the management of his personal finances as evidenced by the following:

a.  The applicant wrote three checks on 7, 8, and 9 Jul 84, for which he had insufficient funds in his account, for which he was issued a letter of reprimand.

b.  The applicant failed to reimburse a fellow Airman for long-distance telephone calls he made on the fellow Airman’s telephone until he was counseled regarding his failure to do so, and thereafter paid his debt by pawning his stereo equipment.

c.  The applicant acknowledged that his financial irresponsibility would continue while he was in the Air Force, as evidenced by a statement of the applicant dated 4 Oct 84.

On 15 Oct 84, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, indicating that he consulted legal counsel, but declined to submit statements on his own behalf.

On 25 Oct 84, the action was found legally sufficient and it was noted that the applicant’s financial irresponsibility cited in the action was merely a continuation of the applicant’s financial irresponsibility during his previous enlistment, for which he was provided extensive counseling and reasonable efforts to assist him.

On 26 Oct 84, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and determined that probation and rehabilitation was not appropriate.

On 30 Oct 84, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for unsatisfactory performance and was credited with 4 years, 3 months, and 14 days of total active service. 

On 1 Dec 15, the applicant was provided an opportunity to submit documentation regarding his conduct since leaving the service.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit C).  

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 do not find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Based on the evidence before us, it appears the applicant’s General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the applicant did not submit supporting documentation concerning his post-service activities to determine if his accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged.  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-2015-04291 in Executive Session on 5 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03346 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 03 Aug 15.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 15 w/atch.

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.