RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04102

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There is no error.  Just a request after 15 years.  He is currently homeless in New York, utilizing shelters.  After all of these years he realizes he was wrong and immature, but what he learned in the Air Force was valuable.  He hopes he can be forgiven in “the long run.”  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Feb 99.

On 18 Feb 00, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge for a pattern of misconduct, discreditable involvement with military authorities, and drug abuse.  The reasons for taking this actions were:

	a.  On or about 9 Jul 99, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  For this, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

	b.  On or about 14 Jul 99, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  For this, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

	c.  On or about 26 Jul 99, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  For this, he received an LOC.

	d.  On 14 Aug 99, the applicant was derelict in his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages, as it was his duty to do.  For this, he received an LOR.

	e.  On or about 26 Sep 99, the applicant was disrespectful in language to a non-commissioned officer, who was then in execution of his office, by saying, “you have to tell me why,” and “man, why do you have to get in my face.”  For this, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) through Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCJM), with a corresponding Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

	f.  On or about 27 Sep 99, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to shave prior to duty, as it was his duty to do.  For this, he received an LOC.

	g.  On or about 3 Nov 99, the applicant wrongfully used marijuana.  For this, he received NJP through Article 15 of the UCMJ, with a corresponding UIF.

	h.  On or about 9 Dec 99, the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  For this, he received a LOC.

	i.  On or about 10 Dec 99, the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  For this, he received a LOR.

The applicant was notified of his right to legal counsel, to an administrative discharge board (ADB), and to submit statements in his own behalf.  He unconditionally waived his right to an ADB.  

On 7 Mar 00, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.

On 13 Mar 00, the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge without probation or rehabilitation.  The primary reason for discharge was drug abuse, however, his discreditable involvement with military authorities was also a consideration.  

On 14 Mar 00, the applicant was issued a UOTHC discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct,” and was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 4 days of active service.  

On 20 Jun 16, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the documentation the applicant submitted concerning his post-service activities was insufficient for the Board to determine 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 relief sought.

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-2015-04102 in Executive Session on 24 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04102 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 16, 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.