RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-01308

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was no error made.  He made a mistake and has paid for it.  He wants his discharge upgraded in order to apply for a Veterans loan.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 6 Sep 90.  

On 28 Jun 91, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for wrongfully using government telephones for making personal long distance calls.  For this misconduct, his punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman, suspended for six months, after which time it would be remitted unless sooner vacated and forfeiture of $75 of pay per month for two months.

On 10 May 93, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for making a false official statement and larceny. For this misconduct this misconduct, his punishment consisted of reduction in grade to airman first class, forfeiture of $233 pay, and 14 days of extra duty:

On 24 Aug 93, the applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities.  He was credited with 2 years, 11 months and 19 days of active service. 

On 29 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 notes while the applicant does not contest the Article 15s he received there was no evidence found to support setting aside the nonjudicial punishment. JAJM further states the decision to change the applicant’s characterization is outside of their purview.  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 8 May 18 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 error or injustice.  We note the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects he received a UOTHC discharge and not a BCD.  We further note the applicant’s discharge documents were not available for our review.  Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation and character of service could not be verified.  However, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, absent evidence to the contrary, we must assume the applicant’s discharge, to include his service characterization and narrative reason for separation, were proper and in compliance with the directive under which it was effected.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence for us to consider in determining whether or not the applicant’s activities since leaving the service are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged, we are not inclined to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  However, should the applicant provide new evidence pertaining to his post-service accomplishments the Board would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2017-01308 in Executive Session on 14 Jun 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Mar 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atch, dated 29 Sep 17
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 15 Mar 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 8 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.