RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05390

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge was unjust.  While completing his enlistment paperwork, he was told by his recruiter that due to time constraints he did not need to put his financial information on his SF 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions.  She indicated that the Air Force would run financial and criminal background checks on him and put it with his personnel file.  Three years later, he received a general discharge because of “Fraudulent Enlistment” (intentionally, not putting financial information on the SF 86).  With a general discharge he doesn’t get any or very minimal VA benefits, not to mention his main goal with an upgraded discharge is to join the military.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Air Force Reserve (AFRES) on 3 Mar 08.

On 3 Mar 08, he completed a SF-86, as part of his enlistment paperwork, answering “No” in response to questions which asked if he had any financial delinquencies or past criminal incidents.  

On 1 Apr 09, a decision was made to deny the applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information or employment in sensitive duties.  Adverse information from an investigation of his personal history led to security concerns.  The reasons were delinquent financial accounts, and criminal conduct (Simple Worthless Check, Improper Muffler, Speeding, Driving After Drinking).  The answers on his SF-86 to “charges” and “debts” within the last seven years were “NO.”  

On 8 Jun 09, the applicant was informed that he had obtained a total of eight unexcused absences within the last year.  Additionally, based on his responses to the 1 Apr 09 adverse information findings, the commander had decided to separate him from the AFRES.   

On 5 May 11, the applicant was involuntarily demoted from the permanent grade of airman first class to the permanent grade of airman basic effective and with the date of rank (DOR) of 3 May 11.

On 18 Oct 11, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3209, SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT PROCEDURES FOR AIR NATIONAL GUARD AND AIR FORCE RESERVE MEMBERS, Fraudulent Entry.  

On 8 Nov 12, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change his reenlistment code.  They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirement of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  The Board further concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, change of narrative reason for discharge or reenlistment code, and determined the discharge should remain unchanged.  

On 2 Jul 13, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable, change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change his reenlistment code.  They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirement of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  The Board further concluded that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, and determined the discharge should remain unchanged.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by SAF/MRBP, which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  A review of the applicant’s records, supporting documents, and his previous Discharge Review Board (DRB) cases, FD-2012-00103 (Non-Personal Appearance) and FD-2013-00222 (Personal Appearance), revealed the prior determinations by the DRB 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 these findings, there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of the applicant’s general discharge.  

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 Jun 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 opinion and recommendation of SAF/MRBP and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2015-05390 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05390 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 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.