RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02859 

						COUNSEL:  NO

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect:

a.  Item 3.  His actual three numbers of his Social Security Number (administratively resolved).

b.  Item 23.  Type of Separation, be changed from discharge to retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since the AFBCMR approved his request to change his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, he should now be allowed a retirement rather than a discharge based on his length of service of 22 years, 1 month, and 21 days.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 Dec 72, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force.

On 4 May 95, the applicant was discharged with a BCD due to his court-martial conviction for wrongfully using cocaine.  He was credited with 22 years, 1 month, and 21 days of active duty service.

The applicant appealed to the Board to have his court-martial overturned.  On 28 Oct 97, the applicant was advised that the Board was without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction.  The Board further found no basis to modify the court-martial conviction based on clemency.

On 7 Jul 98, 5 Mar 02, 7 Dec 04, 20 Jun 05, and 10 Feb 06, the Board considered and denied the reconsideration requests of an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

On 17 Mar 14, the applicant again appealed to the Board requesting reconsideration for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 1 Sep 15, by a majority vote the Board approved upgrading the applicant’s discharge from a BCD to a general discharge.

On 16 Oct 15, the AFBCMR directed the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and characterization of discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority and general (under honorable conditions).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to justify granting him a retirement.

According to AFR 35-7, Service Retirements, Table 2-2, Rule 15 states:  “If member is under court-martial charges and trial has not begun, and member is retirement eligible as of date of application, the CBPO [Consolidated Base Personnel Office] sends the AF Form 1160 with copy of charges to the General Court Martial (GCM) convening authority.  When the GCM convening authority recommends retirement before trial, CBPO sends AF Form 1160, with charges and allied papers, through the MAJCOM [major command] for SAF [Secretary of the Air Force] decision.  When GCM convening authority does not recommend retirement before trial, CBPO suspends processing the application.  When sentenced, AF Form 1160 is processed under rule 16 or 17 as applicable.  When charges are withdrawn or dismissed, or if the accused is acquitted, CBPO resumes processing of AF Form 1160.”

Furthermore, under the provisions of AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, service member’s service must be honorable to be eligible for retirement.  

The applicant applied for retirement in lieu of court-martial and the Secretary Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the court-martial package and disapproved the applicant’s request for retirement.

There is no evidence showing the applicant did not receive full administrative due process regarding his court-martial and request for retirement.  The SAFPC decision to deny retirement was within their authority. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM 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 14 Aug 17, 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  The Board notes under the provisions of the governing instruction, in order to qualify for retirement, a service member’s service must be honorable yet the applicant’s discharge was upgraded to a General and not an Honorable discharge.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2016-02859 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02859 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 22 Sep 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Aug 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.