RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04359

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to change his under honorable conditions (general) discharge characterization to honorable.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge characterization is inequitable for minor infractions which was not a true reflection of his military service.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 20 Feb 07.

On 6 Oct 11, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to obey a lawful order. 

On 5 Dec 11, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to make a satisfactory score on his fitness composite. 

On 19 Jan 12, the applicant received a LOC for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  

On 23 Feb 12, the applicant received an Article 15, non-judicial punishment (NJP), for willfully failing to refrain from using his government travel card (GTC) for personal purposes on diverse occasions. For this offense, he received with a punishment of reduction to the grade of Airman First Class (suspended), forfeiture of $286 pay, 35 days extra duty, and a reprimand.

On 5 Mar 12, the applicant received a LOR for failing to make a satisfactory score on his fitness composite. 

On 29 Jun 12, the applicant received a LOC for failing to obey a lawful order.  

On 19 Jul 12, the applicant received a Vacation Action for failing to go to duty on time with a punishment of reduction to the grade of Airman First Class.  

On 15 Nov 12 and 19 Nov 12, the applicant received LORs for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 

On 14 Jan 13, his commander recommended him for discharge with an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization.  
	
On 16 Jan 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements on his own behalf. 

On 18 Jan 13, the 96 TW/JA reviewed the discharge package and found it legally sufficient to support separation. 

On 22 Jan 13, the discharge authority approved and directed the applicant’s discharge be characterized as a general discharge.  

On 30 Jan 13, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 11 months, and 11 days of active service.  

On 1 Apr 14, the applicant was notified by the Air Force Discharge Review Board his request to upgrade his discharge was denied.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in the discharge processing.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Although the applicant has presented new information in support of his application to the AFBCMR not presented with his previous Discharge Review Board (DRB) case, the new information does not provide sufficient documentation to support that an inequity or an impropriety took place at the time of the discharge.  The DRB determined that 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 abovementioned findings, there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade.

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

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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice and his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-04359 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 24 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 9 Jun 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jun 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.