RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04428

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His first sergeant improperly advised him about all of his options, and if he had been given all of the choices, he would have fulfilled his full term of service obligation.  The general discharge characterization has placed restrictions on securing employment and benefits for both him and his family.  His records were lost when they were transferred to St. Louis, so he never received his records or his DD Form 214.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 9 July 1993.

On 21 August 1995, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for one charge and specification of failing to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant accepted the NJP, consulted with counsel, asked for a personal appearance, and submitted written matters in his defense.  The commander upheld the NJP and imposed punishment of a reprimand and 20 days extra duty.  On 28 August 1995, a review by a judge advocate found the NJP legally sufficient.

On 13 September 1995, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose NJP for one charge and specification of failing to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  The applicant accepted the NJP, consulted with counsel, asked for a personal appearance, and submitted written matters in his defense.  The commander upheld the NJP and imposed punishment of a reduction in rank from E-3 (airman first class) to E-2 (airman).  On 2 October 1995, a review by a judge advocate found the NJP legally sufficient.

On 16 October 1995, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose NJP for one charge and specification of uttering a draft (drafting insufficient funds) from his bank in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ, and one charge and specification of failing to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  The applicant accepted the NJP, consulted with counsel, asked for a personal appearance, and submitted written matters in his defense.  The commander upheld the NJP and imposed punishment of a reduction in rank from E-2 to E-1 (Airman Basic).  The applicant did not appeal.  On 18 October 1995, a review by a judge advocate found the NJP legally sufficient.

On 20 December 1995, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 7 August 2017, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B, the post service letter at Exhibit C, and the advisory at Exhibit D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  There is not enough evidence of error or injustice that would undermine the NJP actions the applicant received.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 23 October 2017 for comment (Exhibit E), 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 state of the evidence, the Board finds no basis to do so.  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).  Had the applicant provided post-service information in support of clemency, the Board could have waived the three-year limit.  However, in the absence of such information, 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-2016-04428 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 31 October 2016.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, AFBCMR, dated 7 August 2017.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 September 2017.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 23 October 2017.

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