RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01692 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge he was 17 years old and a dumb kid. His is currently a journeyman plumber and has raised three children. One is in the Army and one is in the Navy becoming a nurse. He is 47 years old and going back to school to study wind technology. The mistakes he made at age 17 he cannot take back, but he can try to make up for them. He has done his best in regards to making himself a model citizen. If he could do his life over he would not make the mistakes he made earlier in life. In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement, copies of his Journeyman Plumbers Certificate, and information on his education in Renewable Energy Technology. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered active duty on 21 Jan 81. On 7 Oct 81, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending the applicant for discharge for unsuitability, apathy, and defective attitude. The reasons for the recommendation were: 1. On 22 Sep 81, he received counseling concerning three dishonored checks he wrote at the Base Exchange. 2 On 11 Sep 81, he received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to obey a lawful order. 3. On 6 Aug 81, he received an Article 15 for failure to obey a lawful order. 4. On 21 Jul 81, he received an Article 15 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 5. On 12 Jun 81, he received a Letter for Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 6. On 10 Jun 81, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for wearing an earring while in uniform. 7. On 26 May 81, he received an LOC for incurring a traffic citation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and that military counsel was made available to him, and waived his rights to an administrative discharge board hearing. The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient and, on 20 Oct 81, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a General discharge without probation or rehabilitation. On 20 Oct 81, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for being Unsuitable—Apathy, Defective Attitude, and was credited with nine months of active service. On 3 Dec 87, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) considered a request from the applicant to upgrade his discharge to Honorable. The DRB denied the request, finding that neither the evidence of record nor the evidence provided by the applicant substantiated an inequity or impropriety which would justify a change of discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C. On 24 Aug 12, a copy of the FBI Report and a request for post- service information were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-01692 in Executive Session on 28 Sep 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01692 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 28 Mar 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Record. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 12. Panel Chair