RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00385 COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was informed he could request an upgrade to his discharge.
The	applicant’s	complete	submission,	with	attachments,	is	at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Mar 86.
On 26 Sep 86, the applicant reported late for duty. For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

On or about 11 Nov 86, the applicant without authority, failed to go to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). For this misconduct, he was reduced in grade to airman, forfeiture of $100.00 pay and correctional custody for 30 days. The portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman was suspended until 1 Jun 87, at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, would be remitted without further action. On 31 Dec 86, the portion of the punishment which called for 30 days correctional custody was remitted.

On 17 Feb 87, the applicant received a traffic ticket for an expired registration on his vehicle.

On 7 May 87, the applicant received a dishonored check notice and on 10 May 87, he received a second notice.

On 7 Jul 87, the applicant was found sleeping while on duty. For this misconduct, he was counseled by his supervisor.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

On 15 Jul 87, the applicant was late for work and failed to return to work after a scheduled appointment. For this misconduct, he was counseled by his supervisor.

On or about 26 Aug 87, the applicant without authority failed to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. For this misconduct, he was reduced in grade to airman, with a new date of rank (DOR) of 4 Sep 87.

On 26 Aug 87, the applicant was referred to financial counseling for being 90 days delinquent on his club account.

On 23 Sep 87, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a Pattern of Misconduct – Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. Before recommending discharge, the commander noted the applicant’s two Article 15s have failed to change his attitude. The commander did not recommend probation or rehabilitation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, consulted legal counsel and elected to submit written matters in his own behalf.

On 5 Oct 87, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation.

On 6 Oct 87, the discharge authority approved the separation. On
15 Oct 87, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions_ discharge, with a separation code of “JKM,” which denotes “Pattern of Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline,” and a Reenlistment (RE) code of 2B. He as credited with 1 year, 7 months and 13 days of total active service.

On 18 Jun 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 BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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
1.	

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. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative discharge and lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted on this basis. 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, 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-2016-00385 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair Member
Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00385 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 161, w/atch.
Exhibit B.	Pertinent Excerpts from Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 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.