RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04962 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was to be upgraded to Honorable after 6 months but he received no notification it was upgraded.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 24 Sept 76, the applicant initially entered active duty in the Regular Air Force.

On 22 Mar 83, the applicant’s start date for the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) was adjusted to 10 Jul 83, because he was placed on the Control Roster. The cause of action to place the applicant on the Control Roster is not identified in his master personnel record (MPR).

On 20 May 87, the applicant’s commander administered an Article 15, Non-judicial Punishment for failure to maintain sufficient funds for payment of checks issued in Apr 87. The applicant was reduced in grade to Sergeant and ordered to perform 14 days of extra duty.  The reduction in grade was suspended.

On 21 Jan 88, the applicant’s start date for the AFGCM was adjusted to 18 Apr 88 because he was placed on the Control Roster. Again, the action resulting in his placement on the Control Roster is not identified in the MPR.

On 30 Jan 90, the applicant’s Airman Performance Report, Air Force Form 707, for the period from 2 Feb 89 to 1 Feb 90 was referred to him because it contained ratings and comments regarding his lack of financial responsibility.

On 12 Apr 90, the applicant’s commander administered an Article 15, Non-judicial Punishment for issuing drafts on numerous occasions with the intent to defraud in that he knew he did not have sufficient funds for payment of the drafts. The applicant was reduced in grade to sergeant and was directed to perform 45 days of extra duty.

On 12 Apr 90, the applicant was not recommended for reenlistment by his commander for failing to meet the standards expected of a Non-commissioned Officer in that he received an Article 15 Non- judicial Punishment.

On 22 May 90, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance (Financial Responsibility) based on a pattern of continuing financial irresponsibility.  The applicant was advised of his rights to include counsel. The administrative discharge action was found legally sufficient and approved by the discharge authority on 25 Jun 90.

On 29 Jun 90, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge with a Narrative Reason for Separation listed as “Unsatisfactory Performance”, and was credited with 13 years, 9 months, and 6 days of active service.

On 9 Mar 16, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant 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 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 and narrative reason for separation 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 characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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-2015-04962 in Executive Session on 18 Apr 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04962 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 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.