RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00226 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His characterization of discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. 2. His records be corrected to reflect his award of the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR). ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He simply wants the blemish of his discharge characterization to be removed. He is proud of his military service and only wants the errors, which were just a small part of his military service, to be changed so it is more in line with his actual dedication and performance. He realizes he had to develop a track record of being a responsible citizen before petitioning the Board for a change of his discharge status. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of a Certificate of Appreciation. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 29 March 1989. The applicant received one Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, two letters of Counseling, a referral enlisted performance report, an unfavorable information file, and a motor vehicle citation between 30 December 1989 and 7 February 1992. On 12 February 1992, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, paragraph 5-47b. The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intent, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. After considering the applicant’s statement, his commander recommended the applicant for discharge. On 28 February 1992, after the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge without probation or rehabilitation. The applicant was released from active duty effective 2 March 1992 in the grade of airman first class (E-3), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.” ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request for the SAEMR. DPSID states the SAEMR is awarded to all United States Air Force service members who after 1 January 1963, qualify as “expert” in small-arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun. Qualification as “expert” in both weapons after 22 June 1972 shall be denoted by a bronze service star worn on the service ribbon. DPSID indicates that they were unable to locate official documentation verifying the applicant qualified as expert with either the M-16 or handgun for award of the SAEMR. To grant award of the SAEMR to the applicant, without validation that he obtained the required eligibility criteria, would be contrary to the provisions by Department of Defense Manual 1348.33. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 March 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility concerning the applicant’s request for award of the SAEMR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 4. In regard to the applicant’s request to upgrade his characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable, 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 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 find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-00226 in Executive Session on 15 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00226: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 13 w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Mar 13. 3 4 5