RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04399

	COUNSEL:

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The circumstances surrounding his discharge were based upon immature mistakes he made and he feels that he has suffered enough over 30 years to warrant an upgrade.  He has dedicated many volunteer hours over the years to justify a change in his discharge status.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 8 July 1965.

According to a Report of Investigation dated 7 July 1983, the Office of Special Investigations reviewed the applicant’s leave history and determined he did not sign in or out of leave during the period 15 November – 1 December 1982.

According to a United States District Court Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order dated 6 February 1984, the applicant pled guilty and was convicted of conspiracy to export firearms and dealing in firearms without a license.  He was sentenced to three years imprisonment (suspended), fined $4000, and placed on probation for five years.

According to AF Form 65, Transmittal of Court Martial Charges, dated 5 March 1984, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was charged with six counts of dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and six counts of failure to certify AF Form 988, Leave Request/Authorization, in violation of Article 134 UCMJ.

On 8 March 1984, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court martial.

On 3 April 1984, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court martial, determined he was not a suitable candidate for probation and rehabilitation, and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

On 26 Apr 84, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate indicated that according to AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 4-8, lengthy service consideration is required because the applicant had more than 16 years of active service at the time he submitted his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial.  This section requires that if the discharge authority does not offer probation and rehabilitation, the execution of the approved discharge is withheld pending review by the Major Command Director of Personnel. The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate recommended the discharge under other than honorable conditions be executed without probation and rehabilitation.

On 2 Jul 84, the Secretary of the Air Force denied lengthy service probation and directed the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

According to DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, dated 1 October 1996, the applicant requested that his discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) and requested the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB_ consider three issues.
 
According to AFDRB Hearing Record dated 7 December 1998, the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade was denied.  The AFDRB determined that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety to justify a change of his discharge characterization. 

On 23 August 2017, a request for post-service information was sent to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  On 26 October 2017, the applicant provided a personal statement and indicated that since his submission he has been awarded the highest degree as a Masonic, which very few men accomplish.  In support of his request, the applicant provides the FBI’s response to his Freedom of Information Act request and states that he knew they would not find anything on him since he has not been in any trouble. 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments is at Exhibit D.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B, his post-service clemency information, with attachments, at Exhibit D.

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-2016-04399 in Executive Session on 3 May 2018:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 1 November 2016.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post-Service Clemency Request, w/atch, dated 23 August 2017.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 26 October17.

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