RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02130
	COUNSEL: 

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His reenlistment (RE) code changed from a 2B (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge) to a 1.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The documents used against him should not have been presented as they came from his previous base.  His commander convinced him to bring those records to him.  He did not fully understand the consequences for doing this action and believe it was unjust and against regulations to use those records.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman.

On 21 Jul 88, 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 Airman, para 5-46, for Minor Disciplinary Factors.  The reasons for the action were as follows:

	a.  On 28 Aug 86, he was convicted by the city of Minot in Minot North Dakota for unlawful possession of Alcohol.  As a result received a letter of Reprimand on 23 Sep 86.

	b.  On 9, 20, 23 May 88 and 17 Jun 88, he was late for duty.  He received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 17 Jun 88. 

	c.  On 24 Jun 88, he failed to report to his place of duty.  As a result, he received an Article 15 issued on 6 Jul 88.

	d.  On 24 Jun 88, he failed to maintain his dormitory to minimum standards.  As a result, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

On 28 Jul 88, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 29 Jul 88.

On 3 Aug 88, the applicant received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Oct 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 advisory at Exhibit D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.

 In accordance with AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 1-17, characterization of service will be based on the quality of the member’s service as reflected in the military record. If a military record contains derogatory data, the total service in the current enlistment must be considered. The applicant voluntarily provided documentation for the commander to consider his entire record during the enlistment period. The commander concluded that an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization was warranted in this case and the discharge authority concurred. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice with the discharge processing.

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 9 May 18 for comment (Exhibit E), 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.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Furthermore, the Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, due to the lack of post-service information, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

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-2017-02130 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C 	Letter, AFBCMR, Atch, dated 24 Oct 17.doc
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 13 Mar 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 9 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.