RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03294
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Misconduct 
– Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions” to “Convenience of 
the Government,” or “Reduction in Force.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He is trying to get approved for a Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) loan and is four days short of eligibility.  The 
Air Force was offering “early out” for airmen at the time and 
while he did have minor infractions, they did not warrant a 
discharge.  The DVA website indicates that he may still be 
eligible if he were discharged due to convenience of the 
government or reduction in force. 

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 20 Aug 1986, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 27 Jul 1988, he was notified by his commander that he was 
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The 
reasons for this action were: 

      On or about 18 Aug 1987, he issued a worthless check in the 
amount of $50.00.
      
      On or about 17 Sep 1987, he issued a worthless check in the 
amount of $10.00.
      
      On or about 22 Sep 1987, he issued a worthless check in the 
amount of $20.00.

      On or about 30 Sep 1987, he issued a worthless check in the 
amount of $20.00.
      
      On or about 6 Oct 1987, his room was found to be in a 
disorderly state during an inspection.

      On or about 17 Nov 1987, he issued a worthless check in the 
amount of $20.00.
      
      On or about 29 Nov 1987, he violated a lawful regulation by 
operating his private motor vehicle without any insurance.

	On or about 29 Jun 1988, he disobeyed a lawful order not to 
operate a motor vehicle on any military installation, for a 
period of one year.
      
On 27 Jul 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
Discharge Notification, consulted with legal counsel and 
submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 29 Jul 1988, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
action legally sufficient.

On 3 Aug 1988, the discharge authority directed he be discharged 
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 16 Aug 1988, the applicant received a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.  The narrative reason for 
separation is “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary 
Infractions.”  He served on active duty for 1 year, 11 months 
and 27 days.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that they found no 
error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action. 
Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
record, the discharge to include his characterization of service 
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of 
the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any 
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in 
the discharge processing.

?
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 Oct 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation 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 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.  Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________

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-2013-03294 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Sep 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 2013.
1 2