RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01484 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to Honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable and improper.  He was discharged for two minor infractions in 2 years.  He was accused of driving while intoxicated, and a blood-alcohol test was taken, but the results were not documented.  He was not afforded the opportunity for probation.  A medical provided determined the incident was isolated and there was no pertinent evidence of a problem.  He had a falling out with his Squadron Section Commander, who was being vindictive and unfair, and had no proof that he was drunk.  He was also pulled over for exceeding the speed limit and cited for having his US Forces License temporarily revoked.

Prior to these incidents he had high performance ratings, and received accolades.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Feb 81.

On 10 Jan 83, the applicant’s commander notified him he was going to recommend him for discharge due to a pattern of misconduct.  He was advised of his right to legal military council and to submit statements on his own behalf.  The reasons for this action were:

	a.  On or about 23 Mar 82, applicant was reprimanded for failure to repair for duty.

	b.  On or about 28 Apr 82, applicant was apprehended for operating a passenger car while drunk and received an Article 15.

	c.  On or about 16 Oct 82, applicant was apprehended for driving under revocation of a driver’s license.

	d.  On or about 22 Oct 82, information was disclosed that the applicant was in possession of used marijuana at diverse times between Aug-Oct 82. 

The separation action was determined to be legally sufficient, and on 11 Feb 83, the discharge authority directed he be discharged with a General discharge without probation or rehabilitation.

On 25 Feb 83, the applicant was furnished an General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Separation of “Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions,” and was credited with 2 years and 21 days of active service.  

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jun 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

The applicant does not allege any procedural due process violations relating to the nonjudicial punishment (NJP), but rather challenges the material facts in question, the evidence which supported the commander’s decisions and the severity of the punishment imposed by his commander.  He also alleges that evidence in his defense was not given adequate consideration and that he should have been given probation and rehabilitation.  A commander considering a case for disposition under Article 15, UCMJ, exercises discretion in evaluating the case, determining if the accused committed an offense, and if so, what if any punishment is warranted and the nature and extent of the punishment.  The commander in this case had the ability to review witness statements and confer with legal counsel as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The punishment decision was well with the limits of his commander’s authority and discretion.  Having considered his allegations of error, we do not find that the record supports any legal or procedural error in his NJP actions.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  However, they recommend the Board consider directing that the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to accurately reflect the narrative reason for separation, i.e., “Pattern of Misconduct – Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities” as opposed to “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.”   

The applicant’s service record contains multiple documented instances of misconduct.  He was properly notified of the administrative discharge action and informed of his rights to be represented by military counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  After consulting military legal counsel, the applicant submitted written statements from two noncommissioned officers discussing his performance as an assistant dormitory manager and as an intermural softball teammate.  A written legal review of the discharge action was completed on 2 Feb 83, with a recommendation the applicant “should be discharged because of his pattern of discreditable involvement with military authorities.”  The separation authority may exercise discretion when deciding on the character of service; thus, in the applicant’s case it was ultimately determined that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was appropriate.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s military records to indicate that his discharge characterization was (or is) erroneous or unjust.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 Feb 17 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 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 or injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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-2016-01484 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01484 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Oct 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 20 Nov 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 17.
	
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.