RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04957

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He needed a hardship discharge, and his First Sergeant encouraged him to commit infractions that would lead to an administrative discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Nov 79.

On 14 Sep 83, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The basis for this action was minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by three verbal counselings and a nonjudicial punishment action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

On 14 Sep 83, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and on 19 Sep 83 he submitted a request to the discharge authority to consider separating him with an honorable service characterization.

On 27 Sep 83, the staff judge advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient, recommending a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 3 Oct 83, the discharge authority considered the applicant’s request for an honorable service characterization, but determined it was in the best interest of the Air Force that he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization.

On 11 Oct 83, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct.”

On 18 Sep 17, the Board sent a request for post-service information to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C), but has not received a response.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application on the merits.  There is insufficient evidence of error or injustice that would undermine the nonjudicial punishment action the applicant received.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 11 Jan 18 for comment (Exhibit D), 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 evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice; the application was not timely filed and 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-2016-04957 in Executive Session on 3 May 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, dated 18 Sep 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 11 Jan 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 19 Jan 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.