ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1995-02904-2

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request to upgrade his discharge to honorable and correct his grade to reflect airman (E-2).

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic (E-1).  

On 7 Aug 97, the Board considered and denied his request to correct his grade to airman (E-2), receive pay for 16 days of accrued leave and upgrade his discharge to honorable; finding the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.  However, the applicant’s time in the Delayed Enlistment Program was administratively corrected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit H. 

On 28 Sep 20, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request to correct his grade to reflect airman (E-2) and upgrade his discharge to honorable.  He again contends he served the required days in the Air Force to be promoted to E-2.  Also, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Service Certification letters show his character of service as “Under Honorable Conditions.”  In addition, he receives service-connected disability compensation of 80 percent from the DVA for his honorable service.  Finally, if his discharge cannot be upgraded because of “rules,” he would like his post-service education and volunteer efforts considered.  In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant submitted the following new evidence: (1) Cover letter; (2) DVA service verification cards; and (3) DVA Service Certification letters. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit I

On 1 Jul 21, the Board sent the applicant a request for post-service information (Exhibit J), including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); however, he has not replied.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

On 25 Jul 18, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued supplemental guidance (Wilke Memo) to military corrections boards in determining whether relief is warranted based on equity, injustice, or clemency.  These standards authorize the board to grant relief in order to ensure fundamental fairness.  Clemency refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and is a part of the broad authority Boards have to ensure fundamental fairness.  This guidance applies to more than clemency from sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  Each case will be assessed on its own merits.  The relative weight of each principle and whether the principle supports relief in a particular case, are within the sound discretion of each Board.  In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, the Board should refer to the supplemental guidance, paragraphs 6 and 7. 

The entire guidance can be found at Exhibit J.

AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, describes the types of service characterization: 

Honorable.  The quality of the airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

Under Honorable Conditions (General).  If an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, this characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record.

Under Other than Honorable Conditions.  When basing the reason for separation on a pattern of behavior or one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.  The member must have an opportunity for a hearing by an administrative discharge board or request discharge in lieu of trail by court-martial.  Examples of such behavior, acts, or omissions include, but are not limited to:

•	The use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death.
•	Abuse of a special position of trust.
•	Disregard by a superior of customary superior - subordinate relationships.
•	Acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States. 
•	Acts or omissions that endanger the health and welfare of other members of the Air Force.
•	Deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons.
•	Rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, rape of a child, sexual assault of a child, sexual abuse of a child, forcible sodomy and attempts to commit these offenses.

AFI 36-3502, Enlisted Airman Promotion and Demotion Programs, Table 1.1, Rule Q (Exhibit K), indicates an individual who is being involuntarily separated under AFI 36-3208 is automatically ineligible for promotion.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice regarding his grade and characterization of service with regards to his discharge.  In accordance with AFI 36-3502, Enlisted Airman Promotion and Demotion Programs, the applicant did not meet the requirements for promotion as his commander-initiated discharge actions rendered him ineligible for promotion.  Further, 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 fundamental fairness; however, given the evidence presented and in the absence of a criminal history report, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-1995-02904-2 in Executive Session on 11 May 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit H:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-G, dated 7 Aug 97.
Exhibit I:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 28 Sep 20.
Exhibit J:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit K:	Excerpt from AFI 36-3502, Table 1.1, Rule Q. 

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