RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00001

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge be upgraded to a Honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not do anything wrong while in the Air Force.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 19 Feb 71.  On 11 Sep 72, 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, Chapter 2, Section A for Unsuitability – Apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively.  The reasons for the action were as follows:  The applicant received two Article 15s for unauthorized use of government telephones and failure to go.  For this misconduct, the applicant was reduced to the grade of airman.  On 4 Oct 72, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and on that same date the discharge authority approved the recommendation.  On 6 Oct 72, the applicant received a general discharge.  On 25 Sep 17, a request for post-service information and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check was forwarded to the applicant (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 advisory at Exhibit D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  The nonjudicial punishments that the applicant received were legally sufficient and should not be set aside.  

Commanders considering a case for disposition under Article 15 exercises discretion in evaluating a case, both as to whether punishment is warranted and, if so, the nature and extent of the punishment. The exercise of that discretion should generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal by the Board absent good cause. Before deciding to impose NJP, the commander would have been aware that certain nonpunitive disciplinary measures, including counseling and reprimands, were available. The commander, at the time of the NJP action, had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence and to determine what action would best maintain good order and discipline and promote a positive behavior change in the applicant. The commander's ultimate decision to impose NJP was based on the evidence of the case and his punishment decisions were well with the limits of his authority and discretion.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 4 May 18 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was 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, 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.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2017-00001 in Executive Session on 28 Jun 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 19 Dec 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atch, dated 25 Sep 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 3 May 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 4 May 18.

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