RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05208

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her narrative reason for separation (misconduct) and corresponding separation code of JKM be changed.

2.  Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B (Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge) be changed to a code that would allow her to reenlist in the military.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her record is unjust because her infractions were financial and she did not have continuous misconduct.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 July 1998.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the violation of Article 123a.  On or about 9 February 2002, at or near Valdosta, GA, with intent to defraud and for the procurement of lawful currency, wrongfully, and unlawfully utter to Bank West, a certain check for the payment of money drawn upon the Southeastern Federal Credit Union of a total amount of $351.00 and signed 9 February 2002, then known to the applicant that she did not or would not have sufficient funds with said bank for the payment of said check in full upon presentation.  The applicant’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman first class and 15 days extra duty.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for the violation of Article 134.  The applicant, being indebted to the Bank of America in the sum of $609.55 for credit card charges, which amount became due and payable on or about 26 February 2002, did at or near Moody AFB, GA, from 26 February 2002 to 26 April 2002, dishonorably failed to pay said debt.  The applicant’s punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman, restriction to the limits of Moody AFB, GA for 15 days, and 15 days extra duty.

On 4 June 2002, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable condition) discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 10 months, and 6 days of active service.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating the specific discharge documentation is absent from the applicant’s record.  There are two Article 15, UCMJ documents found in the applicant’s record that they believe the commander used as part of the basis for discharge.  Based on the presumption of regularity, the applicant’s commander would have notified her that a discharge recommendation was being processed for a Pattern of Misconduct –Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.

Since the discharge documentation is absent from the record, DP2STM is unable to determine whether or not there was additional circumstances that formed the basis of discharge.  Based on the presumption of regularity, the commander would have concluded that attempts to correct the applicant’s behavior met with no success, therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the DD Form 214.  Based on the presumption of regularity, the discharge authority concluded that the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (General) service characterization.  AFI 36-3208 states that a general discharge service characterization is warranted when “significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the airman’s military record.”  Since they cannot review the discharge documentation, they must conclude that the discharge authority determined that the negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct outweighed any positive aspects of her brief military career.  Therefore, the service characterization is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been almost 14 years since the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force and the applicant did not provide a valid reason for not submitting a timely application within 3 years of the alleged error or injustice.  Based on the presumption of regularity, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  They found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.

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

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial indicating the applicant’s discharge documentation is not in her records for review.  However, the applicant does have two Article 15s both involve financial infractions in her record and based on the presumption of regularity she was afforded due process when discharged.  The applicant received a RE code of 2B which is correct based on her involuntary discharge with a general character of service.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 June 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 applicant was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Due to the limited records available and based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  We find no evidence of error or injustice in the available records and without evidence to support the applicant's appeal we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, based on the evidence before us, the Board finds no basis to grant clemency at this time.  However, the Board would be willing to reconsider his appeal should he provide new and relevant information relative to his claim.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no basis upon which 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-2015-05208 in Executive Session on 14 March 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 August 2015, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 11 May 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 9 June 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 June 2016.

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.