RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01553

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was in the process of being medically retired and was unable 
to complete the process because his supervisors began to 
intervene and hinder the process.  He was written up for small 
infractions to build a paper-trail that culminated in an Article 
15 leading to the general discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 May 2007 the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 25 Apr 11, his squadron commander recommended he be 
discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military 
Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49.  His recommendation was 
based on the following actions by the applicant:

	a) On 1 Oct 09, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
hosting a party and allowing an under-age person to become 
intoxicated.

	b) On 22 May 10, he received an LOR for various offenses which 
include failing to perform duties as a fire team leader, 
being involved in an alcohol related incident causing 
detainment by local authorities, and failing to report to 
morning formation on two occasions.

	c) On 27 Jul 10, he received a reprimand and suspended 
reduction to the grade of airman first class for blacking 
out dates on his NATO travel orders in an attempt get out 
of his apartment lease.

	d) On 21 Sep 10, he received an LOR and vacation action for 
being absent from his place of duty without authority.

	e) On 30 Sep 10, he received an LOR for failing to obey a 
lawful order to report to his ADAPT Treatment Meeting.

	f) On 1 Nov 10, he received an LOR for failing to report for 
duty at the prescribed time on 22 Oct 10.

	g) On 17 Feb 11, he received an LOR for leaving the squadron 
premises without authorization.

	h) On 29 Mar 11, he received a reprimand and a suspended 
reduction to the grade of airman for negligently failing to 
properly use his government travel card.

On 9 May 2011, the staff judge advocate reviewed the case and 
found it legally sufficient to support separation.

On 11 May 2011, the wing commander approved the recommendation 
to discharge the applicant.

On 18 May 2011, the applicant received a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge without probation or 
rehabilitation. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant failed to provide 
evidence of an error or an injustice.  Based on evidence in the 
applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority at the time. 

The applicant was counseled on multiple occasions and given 
ample opportunities to improve to no avail.  His commander 
concluded his failure to respond to these opportunities was 
indication probation and rehabilitation would not work and that 
discharge was warranted.  His misconduct clearly outweighed the 
positive aspects of his service, therefore the characterization 
of service as general versus honorable is correct.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 Sep 2014 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  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 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.  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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01553 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 1 May 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 14.