RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03367

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was based on one isolated incident in 27 months of service with no adverse action.

He was on temporary duty (TDY) and was called back to be a witness in a court-martial trial.  No charges were filed or proven against him.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Apr 84, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force.

On 1 May 86, charges were preferred against the applicant for wrongful use, distribution of marijuana and wrongful possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of Articles 112a and 92 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

On 2 Jun 86, the applicant requested to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant acknowledged in his request that if the discharge was approved he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

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.

On 9 Jun 86, the applicant’s commander recommended the request for discharge be approved with an UOTHC discharge.

On 20 Jun and 27 Jun 86, the legal offices reviewed the discharge package and found it legally sufficient to support separation with an UOTHC discharge.

On 27 Jun 86, the discharge authority concurred with the findings and recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished an UOTHC.

On 23 Jul 86, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge with a narrative reason of “Request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.”  He was credited with two years, three months, and eight 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/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant has not submitted a timely petition.  It has been 29 years since his discharge and he has not provided a valid reason for not submitting an earlier application within 3 years of the alleged error or injustice.

Had the applicant been convicted of any of the charges specified, he could have been sentenced to a punitive discharge.  Under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, a service members triable for offense for which a court-martial could adjudge a punitive discharge reflects the serious nature of the conduct.  Typically, the service of the airmen discharged under this provision will be characterized as UOTHC.  The discharge authority determined that the applicant’s misconduct clearly warranted the discharge characterization as indicated in the regulation.  Furthermore, the applicant after consulting with legal counsel requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial which corresponds with the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, the applicant’s character of service, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, and narrative reason for separation are all correct as indicated on his DD Form 214.

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the character of service, SPD code, and narrative reason for separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  There was no evidence found of an error or injustice in the applicant’s discharge processing.

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 14 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03367 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-2015-03367 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 17 Dec 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 16.