RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00148 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was the victim of a personality conflict with is supervisor. In his first year on base, his performance reports always contained good remarks. When his new supervisor first arrived on base, he roomed with the applicant for a few weeks until he found housing. Even though the applicant’s performance did not change, his performance reports became much more negative under this new supervisor. Despite multiple requests to move to another reporting official, he was never given any help. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 28 Feb 85. On 27 Feb 87, the applicant’s supervisor referred his Airman Performance Report (APR) covering the period 28 Feb 86 through 27 Feb 87 to him because it contained comments concerning his substandard duty performance, tardiness, and lack of self-motivation. On 20 Jul 87, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him to be discharged from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions. The reasons for this action were that between 6 Mar 86 and 26 Jun 87 the applicant: a.  Received two verbal counselings and six letters of counseling (LOCs) for working without proper safety equipment, showing a lack of urgency when donning his gas mask and only wearing one bootie, reporting late for duty four times, being out of compliance with AFR 35-10, falling 60-days behind in paying his Enlisted Club bill, and unsatisfactory duty performance. b.  Received four letters of reprimand (LORs) for failing to obey a lawful order to get a haircut, failing to report an accident to the Security Police, failing to comply with AFR 35-10, failing to comply with duty hours by reporting late for duty on three different days, and fraudulently using a vehicle excise license. c.  Received non-judicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer. For this he was punished by 30-days in correctional custody. d.  Was placed on the control roster due to substandard duty performance. On 20 Jul 87, applicant’s commander recommended him for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 24 Jul 87, the applicant’s supervisor referred his APR covering the period 28 Feb 87 through 3 Aug 87 because it contained comments concerning the applicant’s failure to perform his duties properly and his lack of concern for Air Force standards of dress and appearance. On 24 Aug 87, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. On 11 Sep 87, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, a narrative reason for separation of “misconduct—pattern of minor disciplinary infractions,” and was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active service. On 18 Oct 13, a request for post-service information was 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. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. Rather, in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), actions by this Board are limited to corrections to the record to reflect actions taken by the reviewing officials and action on the sentence of the court-martial for the purpose of clemency. We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the UCMJ. We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses to which convicted. In addition, we considered upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find sufficient evidence concerning his post-service activities to warrant relief on this basis. Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists for us 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-2013-00148 in Executive Session on XXX 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Oct 13, w/atch. 1 2