RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01865 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge characterization was severe and malicious and has prevented him from reenlisting in the armed forces. He was 18 years old when he enlisted and he did everything his superiors asked. He made a mistake but has been punished severely and the discharge has affected his life. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of his high school transcript. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 23 Nov 2010, the applicant entered active duty. On 30 Jun 2011, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Air Force as a result of his civilian conviction. Specifically, he was found guilty of trespassing, resisting arrest, defrauding an innkeeper and underage possession of alcohol. On 30 Jun 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification, consulted legal counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 13 Jul 2011, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. On 29 Jul 2011, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as a general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Discharged for Conduct.” He served on active duty for eight months and seven days. On 9 Dec 2013, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. In response to the request, he states the discharge has left a negative impact on his life and career and he is ineligible for reenlistment in the armed forces. He has written to Congress, the President and has been in communication with the other military branches. He has accepted responsibility for his actions and does not deny the actions for the discharge. He is now 21 years old, has learned much and is remorseful for his actions. If given the chance, he knows he could serve this country proudly and bravely. His scores from the entrance testing are exceptional but he cannot enlist because of the negative discharge. He asks the Board for mercy and consideration. His complete submission is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, airmen are subject to discharge for a civilian conviction when a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the United States Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). The applicant was convicted in a civilian court of trespassing, resisting arrest, defrauding an innkeeper and underage possession of alcohol. A punitive discharge would be authorized for his offenses under the MCM. Although the applicant’s desire to serve his country is admirable, it does not change the serious nature of the civil conviction for which the applicant was discharged from the Air Force. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the requested change to his discharge characterization. The discharge, to include his characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 Jun 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant (Exhibit D) for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was timely filed. 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the interest of justice we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service and the post-service documentation provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 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-2013-01865 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2013-01865 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Jun 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Dec 2013, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated. 1 2