RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04229
 
						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, he was going through personal hardship.  He was having problems in his marriage and turned to alcohol to cope which affected his performance as an airman.  He would like his discharge to be re-evaluated and upgraded for education benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 July 2009, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

On 8 September 2010, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged for minor disciplinary infractions in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The reasons for the discharge recommendation include a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC), two Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and two Article 15 actions for failure to report to duty on time, sleeping on duty, and failure to go to his prescribed place of duty. 

On 13 September 2010, the applicant acknowledged the discharge recommendation, his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.

On 15 September 2010, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.    

On 21 September 2010, the discharge authority approved the recommendation the applicant be discharged.

On 24 September 2010, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor Infractions).”  He served 1 year, 2 months and 4 days of active duty service.  

On 6 September 2012, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the applicant’s appeal for upgrade of his discharge to honorable,    change of the reason and authority for the discharge and change of the Reentry (RE) code.  The DRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Additionally, the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  In view of the findings, the DRB concluded there was no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of the discharge and determined the discharge should remain unchanged.  

On 29 September 2016, the AFBCMR provided the applicant with an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G).  As of this date, this office has not received a response.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP states the applicant’s records, supporting documents and previous DRB case were reviewed and no new or additional information was presented.  Therefore, MRBP supports the original decision by the DRB that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant was provided full administrative due process.  In view of these findings, there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade.  

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial.  The discharge 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 of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.

The applicant’s commander determined he had been given adequate opportunity to conform to military standards.  Despite the rehabilitative and disciplinary actions, the applicant refused to change his behavior.  The commander concluded the applicant’s lack of character and continued misconduct warranted discharge.  As a result, the reason for his separation was valid.  Therefore, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on his DD Form 214.

In accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18, a general service characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of their military record.  The applicant’s commander concluded the repeated incidents of misconduct in his brief career warranted a general service characterization and the base discharge authority concurred with the assessment.  Therefore, the service characterization is correct and in accordance with DOD and Air Force instructions.

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

AFLOA/JAJM finds no allegation of error or injustice pertaining to the nonjudicial punishments or discharge action and defers to the advisories already submitted by SAFPC and AFPC/DP2STM-SEP.  A review of the Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS) reveals that both nonjudicial punishment actions received by the applicant underwent two independent legal reviews and were found to be legally sufficient.  

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 7 June 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 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 this 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.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was no evidence presented to warrant recommending granting relief on that basis.  In view of the above and 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-2015-04229 in Executive Session on 1 November 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 August 2015.  
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 May 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 16 May 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 20 May 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 June 2016.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 September 2016, 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.