RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02277 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It has been 15 years since he was on active duty. On 19 Oct 12, he received a letter from Headquarters Air Force Office of Special Investigations (HQ AFOSI) indicating they expunged the Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, court sentence charge indexed in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). They admitted in their letter this was not a qualifying offense and it should not have been entered. They also contend that indexing did not mean he was guilty or innocent of any charges, but rather investigated. He has received surmounting hardship in the past decade as a result of this error and believes he received excessive punishment upon listing his Article 15 into the NCIC. When in fact, he was not prosecuted, tried or convicted of any crime in a court of law. In support of his request, the applicant provided at copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a copy of an AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, a copy of a Memorandum from HQ AFOSI, dated 19 Oct 12 and a personal letter, dated 3 Jun 14. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 97. On 17 Apr 98, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for dereliction of duty as he failed to have his dormitory room ready for the quarterly wing inspection. On 28 Jul 98, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for dereliction of duty as he failed to prepare himself for his second Career Development Course (CDC) examination. On 7 Apr 99, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for adultery, a violation of Article 134 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was reduced in grade to airman basic (E-1) and restricted to the limits of base. On 21 Apr 99, the applicant was notified by his commander he was being recommended for discharge for a pattern of misconduct in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.50.2., conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) service characterization. On the same date, the applicant waived his option to consult counsel and the right to submit statements on his behalf. On 3 May 99, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the proposed discharge package and found it legally sufficient. The discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 18 days of active service. The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects a narrative reason for separation as misconduct. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant received a letter from the Headquarters of the Air Force Office of Special Investigation (HQ AFOSI) expunging the court sentence charge of an Article 15 hearing from his National Crime Information Center (NCIC) record. He contends that with this Article 15 removal from his NCIC record, his discharge should also be upgraded. We recommend that the Board not grant the requested relief. The applicant's squadron commander offered nonjudicial punishment for committing adultery, a violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice. After consulting with a lawyer, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment and submitted a written presentation. After considering the evidence and the applicant's submission, the squadron commander found that the applicant committed the alleged misconduct. Although HQ AFOSI acknowledged adultery is not a qualifying offense and the fact the information should not have been entered into NCIC, this is unrelated to the question of whether there was any error or injustice with the Article 15 or the administrative discharge. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM 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 10 Nov 14 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and although HQ AFOSI acknowledged his previously accepted Article 15 was not a qualifying offense and the fact the information should not have been entered into the National Crime Information Center, this is unrelated to the question of whether there was any error or injustice 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-2014-02277 in Executive Session on 28 Apr 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02277 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 14.