RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00386

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was caused by what he revealed during a security interview.  It was not due to his performance.  He made a mistake early in his career, corrected this behavior, and faithfully served his country for over 19 years.  Following a full investigation, his commander continued to have full confidence in his ability to lead and placed him back into his unit during a critical Air Force audit, and his unit received an outstanding rating.  His military record demonstrates the caliber of airman he was during his military career.  Both his outgoing and incoming commanders provided character statements on his behalf.  Since his discharge, he has received a Bachelor of Science degree, with honors, and a Master of Arts Degree, with a 3.67 grade point average.  He continues to be active in the church and is a single parent to his 11-year old after the sudden death of his spouse.  His discharge characterization was not warranted and he asks the Board to upgrade his characterization to honorable. 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, performance reports, character statements, and other documents related to his appeal.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Sep 78.

On 6 Mar 97, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for drug abuse, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and on 7 Mar 97, he indicated that he did not waive his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and acknowledged that he was entitled to a lengthy service probation consideration.
On 31 Jul 97, the Staff Judge Advocate indicated that according to AFI 36-3208, lengthy service consideration is required because the applicant had more than 16 years of active service before his discharge action began on 6 Mar 97.  This section requires that if the discharge authority does not offer probation and rehabilitation, the execution of the approved discharge is withheld pending review by the Major Command Director of Personnel.  The Staff Judge Advocate recommended the discharge under other than honorable conditions be executed without probation and rehabilitation.

On 18 Aug 97, the Major Command Director of Personnel recommended that the applicant lengthy service probation be denied.

On 17 Sep 97, the Secretary of the Air Force denied lengthy service probation and directed the applicant to be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

On 30 Oct 97, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions character of service.  He was credited with 19 years, 1 month and 18 days of active service.

On 4 Oct 17, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  On 12 Apr 18, the applicant provided a response and reiterated that he had been a model airman during his service in the Air Force.  The applicant also provided a copy of an FBI report dated 29 Mar 18, which indicates he was arrested on 1 Oct 82 for petty theft.  The report also indicated that on 3 Dec 91, the applicant pled not guilty and was acquitted for the purchase, possession, manufacture, distribution, or sale of marijuana.  The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.

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 error or 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.

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-2017-00386 in Executive Session on 17 May 2018:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Feb 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, dated 4 Oct 17.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s Response, with attachment, dated 12 Apr 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.