RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04353

	COUNSEL: NONE
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His grade be reinstated to airman first class and he be provide the reason or cause for discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was falsely accused of grand theft larceny, reduced in rank, and discharged without due process or legal representation.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic.

The applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 3 Jan 72 for failure to go at the prescribed time to appointed place of duty.  

On 12 Jan 72, he received disciplinary punishment (Article 15) for wrongful appropriation of a television set.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman basic and a forfeiture of $25.00 per month for two months.

On 3 Jan 72, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, chapter 2, section A, paragraph 32-4b – in the grade of airman basic.  The reason for this action was that the applicant was evaluated by the Mental Health Clinic, in Alaska on 7 Dec 71, and was diagnosed as having a character and behavior disorder.  Specifically, the applicant was diagnosed with “Paranoid Personality, Moderate.”  The commander further indicated that his paranoid state of mind possibly stemmed from the fact that he previously used marijuana, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), and mescaline.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 18 Jan 72, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and on 21 Jan 72, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge effective 26 Jan 72.  The applicant served six months and 11 days of total active duty.

On 20 Jun 17, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D), 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, E and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM makes no recommendation.  DP2STM will only address the aspects that led to the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force.  The mental health clinic conducted a consultation on the applicant who had indicated that he had used LSD numerous times while at Basic Military Training (BMT) and prior to service.  The applicant further indicated that he was having “flashbacks” as a result and difficulty sleeping.  The applicant indicated that he was not amenable to probation and rehabilitation.  As a result, the commander determined that the applicant’s condition was unsuitable for further military service and the base discharge authority approved the discharge.  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation codes are correct as indicated on the DD Form 214.

Airmen are given under honorable conditions (general) service characterization when there are significant negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct or behavior outweigh any positive aspects of the military record.  The commander and base discharge authority determined that the applicant’s admissions of drug use combined with being reprimanded for failing to go to his appointed place of duty outweighed any positive aspects of his relatively brief military career.  Therefore, the service characterization is correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214. 

The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  No evidence of an error or injustice with the discharge processing was found.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denial of applicant’s request to upgrade his grade to airman first class.  The applicant has not filed a timely petition.  By virtue of the applicant’s request to have his grade upgraded, DP2SPP assumes the applicant is requesting removal of his Article 15.  As they are not the office of primary responsibility for legal issues, they have no equity in the decision regarding his nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  However, should the Article 15 be removed and his grade restored to airman, he would not have been eligible for promotion to the grade of A1C prior to his separation.  IAW AFR 39-29, Promotion of Airmen, 2 Jan 70, paragraph 8, fully qualified airmen in the grade E2 may be promoted on the first day of the month following the month in which he has five months in current grade, computed from the date of rank (DOR).  Based on applicant’s 27 Aug 71 airman DOR, he would not have been eligible for promotion until 1 Feb 72.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

AFLOA/JAJM states applicant’s non-judicial punishment is legally sufficient and should not be set aside.  The exercise of discretion by the commander should generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal by the Board absent good cause.  Absent a legal error or injustice, the commander’s decision should not be disturbed.  The applicant presents no evidence the decision to proceed with the non-judicial punishment or the punishment decision were beyond the commander’s authority and discretion.  Those decisions were not arbitrary or capricious and should not be set aside by the Board.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 26 Apr 18 for comment (Exhibit G), and the applicant replied.  In his response, the applicant contends he should have been promoted to the grade of airman first class but instead he received a demotion to airman basic because he did not want to participate in giving information concerning roommates that his sergeant put him with to gather information against them which he did not want to do.   He further states it was unknown to him that his roommates were being investigated for marijuana distribution on base.    He believes this to be an injustice.  He wants the Air Force to correct their mistake.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

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 error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SPP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; 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-2016-04353 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 18:

, Chair
, Member
, Member

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

            Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 20 Oct 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jun 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 12 Feb 18.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 16 Feb 18.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 14 Mar 18.
Exhibit G:	Notification of Advisories, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 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 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2016-04353.