RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-02618

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic.

On 7 May 70, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for the wrongful possession of marijuana and was sentenced to a forfeiture of $82 pay per month for three months and a reduction in rank from E-3 to E-1.

The applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provision of AFM 39-12.  The reason for the action was a medical diagnosis of a Character and Behavior Disorder.

On 8 Jun 70, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 8 Jun 70.

On 11 Jun 70, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 1 year, 5 months and 12 days of active service.

On 20 Sep 77, the applicant filed an appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade of discharge characterization to honorable. His request was denied.

On 21 Sep 16, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C), but has received no response. 

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D through F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  There is no evidence or allegation of error or injustice that tends to undermine the sentence adjudged at the applicant’s trial.  The applicant has not submitted any new evidence or information that tends to cast doubt on the outcome of his trial, and has not detailed any specific reason or basis why he believes his allegations warrant relief.  The passage of time since conviction is not a sufficient justification for altering the sentence in this case.  There is no basis in law to suggest that the applicant’s court-martial process is an injustice warranting correction by this Board.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s military records to indicate that his discharge characterization was (or is) erroneous or unjust.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denying the application.  Since his discharge from the service, the applicant received mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and has been treated by multiple providers.  None of applicant’s present or past providers addressed or disputed his discharge personality diagnosis and there is insufficient evidence to suggest if this disorder was made erroneously or unjustly.  Since the applicant was not solely discharged for a Personality Disorder, the seriousness of his other misconduct incident would itself warrant no higher than a general discharge.  Additionally, the applicant did not serve honorably as evidenced by his guilty conviction from a special court martial.  Furthermore, the applicant articulated to his commander as reported in his recommendation for discharge memorandum dated 18 May 70, he indicated that he desired a discharge from the USAF and that it was his intent to get out of the service as soon as possible by any means at his disposal.  The applicant did get out of the Air Force as he deliberated and intended. No error or injustice was found.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 27 Apr 18 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Nor was the discharge unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02618 in Executive Session on 30 May 18:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 20 Jun 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Letter, AFBCMR to Applicant, dated 21 Sep 16.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 13 Dec 16.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 26 Jan 18.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 28 Mar 18.
Exhibit G: Notification of Advisories, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 27 Apr 18

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.