RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00820

							COUNSEL: NONE

							HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General, Under Honorable Conditions, discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His infractions were small.  His performance report was erroneously written, and when he tried to correct the staff sergeant, he was threatened.  His field jacket was dirty, but he had one on back order.  When he received his flu shot he had a bad reaction which caused him to fall asleep on the flight line.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman first class.

On 14 Apr 83, the applicant was notified of the commander’s intent to recommend the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for pattern of minor misconduct.  The reasons for the action include:

	a.  Failure to go, for which he received an Article 15, on 25 Mar 83.

	b.  Failure to go, for which he received a letter of reprimand, on 19 Oct 82.

c.  Three counts of being late for work, for which he received counseling, on 29 Jan 83, 17 Jan 83, and 20 Jan 83.

d.  Dress and appearance violation, for which he received counseling, on 22 Dec 82.

e.  Sleeping on duty, for which he received counseling, on 23 Dec 82.

f.  Missed dental appointment, on 11 Mar 82.

g.  Delinquent phone bill, on 11 May 82.

h.  Traffic tickets, on 25 May 82 and 28 Mar 81.

On 20 Apr 83, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to submit a statement on his behalf.

On 22 Apr 83, the discharge action was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 27 Apr 83.  

On 29 Apr 83, the applicant was furnished a general, under honorable conditions, discharge.

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Sep 17 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.  

The commander’s decision to impose non-judicial punishment was based on the evidence of the case, and was within the limits of his authority and discretion.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  

Airmen are given an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization when negative aspects of their performance or behavior outweigh any positive aspects of their military career.  The base legal office reviewed the discharge and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural substantive requirements and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 14 Feb 18 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

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.  The Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates 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.

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-2017-00820 in Executive Session on 22 May 18:

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

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 25 Jan 17.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  AFBCMR letter, w/atch, dated 26 Sep 17.
Exhibit D:  Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Feb 18.
Exhibit E:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, 13 Feb 18.
Exhibit F:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 14 Feb 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.