RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-01457

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged because important evidence was not considered during the discharge process.  He did not deserve a general discharge because although he made mistakes, his positive performance outweighed the negative aspects of his career.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 13 January 1987.

On 22 February 1990, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct, as evidenced by five letters of reprimand.

On 22 February 1990, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and on 1 March 1990, he provided a statement, with attachments, for the discharge authority’s consideration.

The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) acknowledged that the applicant claimed some of the allegations made against him prior to initiation of the discharge action should not be considered because he was not given an opportunity to rebut them.  However, the underlying misconduct formed the basis for discharge, not the manner in which the misconduct was alleged.  In addition, the applicant addressed each allegation in his written response to the discharge action.  The SJA found the discharge action legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service.

On 6 March 1990, the discharge authority approved the recommendation and on 7 March 1990, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 11 October 2017, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  The applicant replied on 7 January 2018.  In his response, he contended that supporting evidence he provided in his 23 February 1990 rebuttal in reply to the 20 February 1990 letter of reprimand was never submitted as part of the package and was not used in his defense.  Since his discharge, he has been married for more than twenty years.  He has also obtained and maintained his commercial driver’s license, which requires that he maintain a clean background check from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.  The applicant’s chain of command had the authority to issue him letters of reprimand.  According to AFR 35-32, Unfavorable Information File Program, administrative reprimands are management tools used by commanders and supervisory staff to improve, correct, and instruct subordinates who depart from standards.  In addition, the application is not timely as it has been over 27 years since the applicant’s discharge.  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 23 February 2018 for comment (Exhibit F), and the applicant replied on 12 March 2018.  His submission is identical to his correspondence dated 7 January 2018 (Exhibit D).  The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

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.

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.

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-2017-01457 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 10 February 2017.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, AFBCMR, dated 11 October 2017.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 7 January 2018.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 18 December 2017.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 23 February 2018.
Exhibit G:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 12 March 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.