RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDSIN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03700 INDEX CODE: 107.00, 110.00, 126.00, 133.00 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the rank of staff sergeant. 3. He be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) and that it be added to his DD Form 214. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His divorce and the actions of his ex-wife, who put him in debt during their legal separation, were used to discredit his service record. He was awarded an expeditionary medal for his service in Greece and other foreign countries; however, it is not listed on his DD Form 214. In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, and a letter from his representative at The American Legion. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 6 Jan 76 to 7 Jul 86 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.On 14 Jun 86, while applicant was serving in the grade of airman first class, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s misconduct included two Article 15 nonjudicial punishment actions, and numerous letters of reprimand, admonishment, and counseling for failure to perform required security checks, failure to go, repeated AFR 35-10 violations, financial irresponsibility, cheating on a firing range test, reckless driving and speeding, and insubordination. On 15 Jan 85, applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for failure to go at the prescribed time to his place of duty. After consulting with his military defense counsel, he waived his right to a court-martial and accepted proceedings under Article 15. He provided defense matters in writing for the commander’s consideration, and elected to request a personal hearing before the commander. On 24 Jan 85, the commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction in rank to sergeant (E-4) with a new date of rank of 25 Jan 85, forfeiture of $50.00, and 30 days of correctional custody, the correctional custody was suspended until 21 Apr 85. He appealed and submitted matters in writing. His appeal was denied. On 24 Apr 86, applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for being derelict in performing his duties of conducting security checks in a priority “A” area. After consulting with his military defense counsel, he waived his right to a court-martial and accepted proceedings under Article 15. He provided defense matters in writing for the commander’s consideration, but elected not to request a personal hearing before the commander. On 2 May 86, the commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction in rank to airman first class (E-3) with a new date of rank of 2 May 86 and 30 days of correctional custody. The applicant appealed and submitted matters in writing. His appeal was denied. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and that he had consulted with military counsel. On 16 Jun 86, applicant offered a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing, contingent on his receipt of no less than a general discharge. The XX Air Force Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 30 Jun 86, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Applicant was discharged on 7 Jul 86, in the grade of airman first class (E-3), under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for Misconduct-Pattern of discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities, and received a general discharge. He served on active duty for ten years, six months, and two days.Pursuant to the Board’s request on 23 Jun 08, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 16 Jul 08, that, on the basis of data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial to change his rank on his DD Form 214 from airman first class to staff sergeant. DPSOE states the applicant provided no supporting documentation as to why his record is in error or that an injustice occurred. His commander acted within her authority when she administered the Article 15 punishments. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. He provided no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during his discharge processing and he provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E. HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial of the AFEM. DPSIDR states the AFEM was established on 4 Dec 61, to be awarded to members of the United States armed forces who, after 1 Jul 58, have participated in a United States military operation and encountered foreign armed opposition, or were in danger of hostile action by foreign armed forces. According to the DoD 1348.33-M, no official military operation was awarded the AFEM in Greece during the period the applicant was assigned.The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit F. AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the Article 15 processes. Each commander was certainly justified in imposing a punishment which included a reduction in grade for the applicant’s violation of military law. So long as they are acting within the scope of authority granted them by law, their judgment should not be disturbed just because others might disagree. Despite his substantial pattern of misconduct spanning his entire active duty career, he received a general discharge. Undoubtedly, his commander could have easily justified giving him an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The applicant provides no evidence that the Article 15 actions and subsequent administrative discharge constitutes an injustice, nor a character statement attesting any improvement in his behavior since separating from the military. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 May 08, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-03700 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-03700 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 07, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Negative Reply, dated 16 Jul 08. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 11 Feb 08. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Feb 08. Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 18 Mar 08. Exhibit G. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 May 08. Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08.