RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05793 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following corrections be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: 1. Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) be changed to reflect “SRA” (Senior Airman, E-4) rather than Airman (E-2). 2. Block 11 (Primary Specialty) be changed to reflect 2A551G rather than 2A531G. 3. Block 15a (Member Contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program) be changed to reflect “Yes.” 4. Block 24 (Character of Service) be changed to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for a minor infraction. He believes that he should have the status he earned and his record restored. He is married and has two children and is a small business owner. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 Nov 93, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. On 4 Oct 96, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that she was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities. For a full list of the offenses, please see the commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B. On 4 Oct 96, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 16 Oct 96, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a Pattern of Misconduct, and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served on active duty for a period of 2 years, 11 months, and 5 days. On 14 Jan 13, AFPC/DPSIT sent the applicant a letter clarifying the information noted in Block 15a of his DD Form 214, and why “No” was marked. DPSIT explained that Block 15a pertains to individuals entering active duty under the Veterans’ Education Assistance Program (VEAP); this option was available for individuals who entered the service between 1 Jan 77 and before 1 Jul 85. The applicant’s date of entry into the Air Force was 12 Nov 93; and his records reflect that he elected to participate in the MGIB. Therefore, this block does not require correction. On 25 Jan 13, AFPC/DPSOE sent the applicant a letter informing him that his rank and pay grade reflected on his DD Form 214 are correct and is the rank and pay grade he held at the time of his discharge on 16 Oct 96. His record reflects that he received an Article 15 on 18 Sep 96 for wrongfully and unlawfully uttering a check for which he had insufficient funds and that his punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman with a new date of rank of 15 Jul 96. Therefore, no correction is required to Block 4a and 4b of his DD Form 214. On 7 Aug 13, a request for information pertaining to his post- service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit F). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. DPSOR states that although the applicant asserts that he was discharged for a minor infraction; the applicant’s discharge record reveals a pattern of misconduct and repeated incidents of disobeying orders from his chain of command which formed the basis for his discharge. The applicant’s discharge to include his character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to add Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2A551G to his DD Form 214, since there is no evidence to support that he was ever awarded this AFSC. DPSIC further states that the applicant’s military record has several documents that contain AFSC information; however, based on his administrative demotion from senior airman to airman first class, his control and primary AFSCs must be at the 3- skill level, not 5-skill level. The complete DPSIC evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 Jun 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ 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. Further, 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, the applicant provides no evidence to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Regarding his other requests, we note the applicant has been advised by letters) as to why these requests could not be approved and we agree with the explanations provided. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2012-05793 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 12, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIC, dated 18 Jun 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 13. Panel Chair