RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03469

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He "made a mistake and payed for it" when he was "young and dumb" and states he has led an "honest life" since the time of his discharge.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Sep 75, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.
On 9 Aug 77, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for Apathy and Defective attitude along with Financial Irresponsibility as defined in paragraphs 2-4c and 2-4g of AFM 39-12.  The commander informed the applicant that he was recommending an “Under Honorable Conditions-General” discharge based on the following: 
		1. On or about 18 Oct 76, the applicant was formally reprimanded by his squadron section commander for failing to obey a lawful order of a senior non-commissioned (SNCO).   
		2. On or about 10 Nov 76, the applicant was notified that he had issued a dishonored check. 
		3. On or about 17 Nov 76, the applicant was again notified of the aforementioned dishonored check. 
		4.  On or about 18 Nov 76, the applicant was placed on the Control Roster due to numerous incidents regarding financial irresponsibility. 
		5. On or about 6 Jan 77, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) from the squadron section commander for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. 
		6. On or about 7 Jan 77, the applicant was notified that he had issued a dishonored check to the Holloman AFB, NM exchange on 11 Dec 76. 
		7.  On or about 21 Apr 77, the applicant was notified that he had issued a dishonored check to the Holloman AFB, NM exchange on 13 Apr 77. 
		8.  On or about 19 May 77, the applicant was notified that he had issued two dishonored checks to the Holloman AFB, NM exchange on 7 May 77 and again on 12 May 77. 
		9.  On or about 23 May 77, the applicant was notified that he had issued a dishonored check to the Holloman AFB, NM exchange on 14 May 77. 
		10.  On or about 15 Jun 77, the applicant was found guilty of eight charges of issuing worthless checks and sentenced to serve 240 days in the city jail.      
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, was given the opportunity to consult with appointed legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority approved the separation and an Under Honorable Conditions—General discharge service characterization. 

On 9 Sep 77, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 16 days of active service.   

A copy of the AFBCMR Acknowledgement and the Clemency Information Bulletin, which recommends submission of post-service information and a Federal Bureau of Investigation Report would be in an applicant’s best interest, was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Dec 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 D and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

DP2STM-SEP notes the record shows that there were numerous corrective actions taken in an attempt to get the applicant to conform to standards, but to no avail.  The discharge authority determined the negative instances outweighed any positive aspects of his brief military career and as a result, as General discharge was warranted.  DP2STM-SEP concurs with this assessment and notes the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  Finally, the applicant has not filed a timely petition; it has been 38 years since the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force.  However, due to the length of time since his discharge, we recognize that the board could consider granting his request based on clemency.   

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating that since the administrative discharge was appropriately processed, AFPC/JA concur with DP2STM-SEP’s recommendation to deny the relief requested to upgrade the member's service characterization.

AFPC/JA notes the applicant was disciplined numerous times across nearly half of his 20 months of active duty.  This included a formal reprimand for failing to obey a lawful order, a letter of reprimand for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, and eight warnings for having checks dishonored.  He was ultimately convicted by civilian officials for issuing eight worthless checks and sentenced to 240 days in jail.

The servicing legal office reviewed the separation and found the discharge to be legally sufficient under the laws and related guidance in effect at the time.  On 31 August 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge with a general service characterization.

The applicant asks the Board to consider his age now and his claim to have lived an honest life and made no mistakes since his administrative discharge.  Those are laudable accomplishments.  But the discussion casts no doubt on the validity of his discharge or characterization of his service.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 Jan 16 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 timely filed.  

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 OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Additionally, in the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there  is no way for us to determine the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the basis 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-2015-03469 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				, Panel Chair
					, Member
					    , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03469 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 15.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 21 Dec 15.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 23 Dec 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jan 16.

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.