RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04636

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served honorably during the first five years of service, and his performance record indicates that he was an exceptional airman.  Then he began having problems and changes occurred that were beyond his control.  He received four counselling records but he did not sign three of them.  He was never offered an opportunity for any psychiatric or physical treatment or any rehabilitation for his behavior issues.  He feels that he should have received a general discharge because his commander had recommended a general discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 30 November 1960.

On 13 July 1967, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program for unsuitability.  The specific reason for this action was the applicant’s involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities as evidenced by three non-judicial punishment (NJP) actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the vacation of a suspended reduction in rank, and four records of counselling.  On the same day, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.

On 14 August 1967, the applicant’s commander concurred with the unit commander’s recommendation for discharge and recommended that the applicant be separated with a general discharge.  On 17 August 1967, the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge.

On 18 August 1967, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 

On 30 August 2017, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application on the merits.  Absent a legal error or injustice, the commander’s decision should not be disturbed.  There is no evidence the decisions to proceed with NJP or the punishment decisions in each case were beyond the commander’s authority and discretion.  The applicant’s three NJP actions are legally sufficient and should not be set aside.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends granting relief by upgrading the applicant’s discharge to general (under honorable conditions).  Although the applicant did not furnish any medical or mental health records post service to support his contention that he may have a mental health condition that could be a mitigating factor to his misconduct, there was clear indication that he was in distress over his marriage that affected his ability to perform his duties and decision making abilities.  While there was a significant shift in the applicant’s work performance towards the end of his career in service, he did show exemplary work performance for at least the first four to five years of service that earned him exceptional performance ratings, praises from his leadership, and an honorable discharge from his first enlistment contract.  Taken into consideration the totality of his military records in which he had more time displaying exemplary service than poor conduct, and that it has been 50 years since his discharge, recommend upgrading the discharge to general (under honorable conditions).  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 18 May 2018 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Nor was the discharge unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, and in the absence of post-service information, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-04636 in Executive Session on 21 June 2018:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 14 November 2016.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, dated 30 August 2017.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 22 March 2018.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 11 May 2018.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 May 2018.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.