RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02894

	COUNSEL:

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Enough time has passed in order for him to be granted an upgrade to his characterization of service.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic.

On 13 May 98, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2 and 5.15 (Pattern of Misconduct).  The specific reasons were as follows:

a. On 21 Sep 95, the applicant signed an official record, which was false in that he did not disclose all of his prior arrest record.

b. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to obey an order; operating a motor vehicle while drunk; twice for being drunk and disorderly; making a false official statement; and falsifying military identification cards for five service members.  The infractions took place during the period of 28 Oct 97 through 7 Feb 98.

c. The applicant received Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for being derelict in the performance of his duty; falsifying his leave request; and for being involved in an alcohol related incident in which he spat on an airman and allegedly uttered a racial slur.  The infractions took place during the period of 30 Aug 97 through 7 Feb 98.

On 7 May 98, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 7 May 98, the applicant was disrespectful toward a Noncommissioned Officer. 

On 8 May 98, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties.

On 14 May 98, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification for discharge action.

The discharge authority approved the recommendation.

On 22 May 98, the applicant received a UOTHC discharge under the provision of AFI 36-3208, (Misconduct).  He served 2 years, 1 month and 13 days total on active duty.

The applicant filed an appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade of his discharge characterization to honorable. On 30 Apr 12, his request was denied.  They concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

On 20 Oct 17, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C), but has received no response.

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:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. We found no evidence of an error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  A commander considering a case for disposition under Article 15, UCMJ, exercises discretion in evaluating a case, both as to whether punishment is warranted and, if so, the nature and extent of the punishment.  The exercise of that discretion should generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal by the Board absent good cause.  Before deciding to impose non-judicial punishment, the commander would have been aware that certain nonpunitive disciplinary measures, including counseling and reprimands, were available.  The commander, at the time of the non-judicial punishment actions, had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence in each case and to determine what action would best maintain good order and discipline and promote a positive behavior change in the applicant.  The commander’s ultimate decision to impose non-judicial punishment was based on the evidence of the case, including the extenuating and mitigating information provided by the applicant, and her punishment decision was well with the limits of her authority and discretion.  There are no legal basis to set aside the applicant’s four non-judicial punishment actions.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 14 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 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-2017-02894 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 18:

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

            Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 30 May 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Oct 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 22 Feb 18.
Exhibit E:  Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Apr 18.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 14 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 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2017-02894.