RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05713

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied the opportunity to cross train but was offered an early separation instead.  He had a good work ethic, followed 
orders to the best of his ability, and never misbehaved or got into trouble in the military.  He has accomplished many great 
things since separating from the Air Force.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 Feb 90, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 8 Jul 92, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory performance and a pattern of misconduct.  The reasons for the 
action were: repeatedly failing to comply with laboratory procedures according to his training, failing to show while “on 
call,” failing to perform corrective actions appropriately, and disobeying a direct order, resulting in multiple letters of 
counseling, letters of reprimand, and the establishment of an unfavorable information file.

On 13 Jul 92, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  An area 
defense counsel representative and the applicant submitted 
statements on his behalf.

On 14 Jul 92, after review of comments from the unit commander 
and the staff judge advocate, the discharge authority approved 
the commander’s recommendation.
On 15 Jul 92, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and credited with 2 years, 
4 months, and 23 days of active service.

According to information provided by Air Force Office of Special 
Investigation, a criminal record pertaining to the applicant 
does not exist.

On 28 Jul 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days.  As of this date no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit C).


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 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 based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the 
applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the 
service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-05713 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.