RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02844

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His other than honorable conditions discharge under be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was dealing with a divorce from his wife and was foolish for not completing his four-year term of enlistment.  He probably should have requested an upgrade before now, but just never did.  He is willing to present correspondence or appear in person to let the Board know why he is a different person now than he was in 1966.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 19 April 1963.

The applicant received a performance report for the period 6 August 1965 thru 5 August 1966, which indicates he consistently failed to demonstrate minimum Air Force requirements, and that these factors are sufficient to warrant the applicant’s removal from the Air Force.

In a letter dated 8 August 1966, the applicant’s rater informed him that this performance report contained comments and a rating that made the report a referral report.

On 8 August 1966, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the referral performance report and indicated that he did not wish to provide comments.

On 16 August 1966, the applicant’s commander concurred with the performance report and indicated the applicant is no value to the Air Force.

On 27 September 1966, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness, and on 26 October 1966, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was credited with 3 years, 6 months and 8 days of active service.

On 25 October 2017, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant 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 and the advisory at Exhibit D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  Based on the presumption of regularity, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  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 26 January 2018 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 error or 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.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2017-02844 in Executive Session on 12 April 2018:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atch, dated 2 June 2017.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, dated 25 October 2017.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 10 January 2018.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 January 2018.

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