RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03209 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was a quiet, foolish and immature young man. He is currently incarcerated; however, prior to his arrest in 08, he had no felony convictions for over 15 years and was a productive member of society. He recently found out through a veterans group he was eligible to request an upgrade to his discharge. He needs his discharge upgraded because there are additional entitlements for inmates with honorable discharges over inmates with general (under honorable conditions) discharges. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 9 Oct 86, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 21 Jan 93, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct-Minor Disciplinary Infractions, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reasons for his action included going absent without leave, financial irresponsibility, and failure to go; all in violation of various articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); for which he received letters of counseling, verbal counseling’s, letters of reprimand, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) entries, and Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ. The commander recommended to the 18th Logistics Group commander (18 LG/CC) that the applicant receive an Under-Other-Than-Honorable-Conditions (UOTHC) discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. On 26 Jan 93, the 18 LG/CC reviewed the case and recommended to the 18 Wing/CC that the applicant be discharged with an UOTHC discharge, without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. On 2 Feb 93, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver to waive his right to a hearing before a board of officers so long as he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 5 Feb 93, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended to the 18 WG/CC that the applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted and he be given a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without the offer of probation and rehabilitation. The SJA noted the squadron commander recommended the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge; however, SJA agrees that it was in the best interest of the Air Force to accept the conditional waiver and characterize the applicant’s service as general. Particularly because of the fact that his last performance report rated him an overall “4” it was unlikely that a discharge board would recommend an UOTHC discharge. On 8 Feb 93, the 18 WG/CC reviewed the case and recommended the 5th Air Force Vice Commander (5 AF/CV) accept the applicant’s conditional waiver and ordered that he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. On 23 Feb 93, the 5 AF/CV accepted the applicant’s conditional waiver and directed the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 17 Mar 93, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for Misconduct—Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions and was credited with 6 years, 5 months, and 10 days of total active service. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicated that on the basis of the information provided, they were able to locate an arrest record. _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service and the infractions which led to his administrative separation we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted. 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. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-03209 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 13, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Chair 1