RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01761 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge should be upgraded due to longevity, good conduct, and because he earned achievement and expeditionary medals. He joined the Army National Guard and received an honorable discharge in 2003. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Army Achievement Medal and Honorable Discharge certificates. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 May 71, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. On 11 Jul 86, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. The basis for the proposed action was: 1) On 14 Sep 83, he was dismissed from Noncommissioned Officer Leadership School for a continued pattern of misconduct; 2) On 18 Apr 86, he received an Article 15 for stealing food from the Officer’s Open Mess. The punishment imposed was a suspended reduction in grade to sergeant and a reprimand; 3) He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for testing positive for cocaine during a Commander Directed urinalysis on 28 Apr 86; 4) On 5 May 86, he received a LOR for failing to pay his rent; and 5) On 11 Jul 86, the suspended portion of his Article 15 was vacated and he was reduced to the grade of sergeant for failing to pay a court-ordered debt for back rent. On 16 Jul 86, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and offered a conditional waiver contingent upon receipt of no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended that he receive a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 7 Aug 86, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 8 Aug 86, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct-Drug Abuse, and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served on active duty for a period of 15 years, 2 months and 25 days. On 16 Aug 89, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. After reviewing the evidence of record, the AFDRB concluded that no upgrade in discharge was warranted. On 5 Dec 13, a request for information pertaining to his post- service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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 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 provided sufficient 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 Docket Number BC-2013-01761 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 5 Dec 13, w/atch. 1 2