RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04412 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was treated like a second class citizen because of his race, which has ruined his life. He needs his discharge to be upgraded in order to get a good job. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant reenlisted into the Regular Air Force on 6 Mar 87 in the grade of senior airman (E-4), with 3 years, 10 months and 17 days prior service. The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (demotion), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Dec 87. The applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-46, for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions. The specific reasons for this action were his failure to go to his appointed place of duty, for being derelict in the performance of his duties on one occasion and his display of insubordinate conduct toward a superior commissioned officer. He received a Letter of Reprimand for dereliction of his duties; two Articles 15 for failing to obey a lawful order and for treating a superior noncommissioned officer with contempt. After a legal review, the case was found to be legally sufficient. The applicant received a general discharge on 7 Oct 88 after serving 1 year, 7 months and 2 days on active duty. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denieda similar appealon 11 Jan 93. On 9 Mar 12, a request for information pertaining to his post- service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days. In response to our request, the applicant provided post-service information, which is attached at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of information furnished. _________________________________________________________________ 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. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. 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 our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04412 in Executive Session on 17 May 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Mar 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Apr 12.