RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03412

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The disciplinary action he received was unjust and not consistent with the discipline issued to other service members.  Furthermore, the General indicated he wanted to make an example of him.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman.  

On 3 Nov 89, 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, Section H, paragraph 5-46, for minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for the action were as follows:

	a.  On 29 Jun 89, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for operating a vehicle while drunk.  For this misconduct, his punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay for two months, 30 days base restriction and a suspended reduction in grade.

	b.  On 17 Oct 89, the applicant received NJP for failure to obey a lawful general order.  For this misconduct, his punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay for two months and a grade reduction.

On 17 Nov 89, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommendation, and on that same date, the applicant received a general discharge. 

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

On 26 Oct 17, the Board forwarded a request for post-service information and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check to the applicant (Exhibit C), but has received no response.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM found the punishment rendered under Article 15 to be legally sufficient and found no basis for them to be set aside.  Furthermore, JAJM defers to the expertise of AFPC and the discretion of the Board to determine whether the applicant’s characterization should be upgraded.  

Commanders considering a case for disposition under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice exercise discretion, both as to whether punishment is warranted and 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 NJP, the commander would have been aware that certain nonpunitive disciplinary measures, including counseling and reprimands, were available. The commander, at the time of the NJP action, had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence and to determine what action would best maintain good order and discipline and promote a positive behavior change in the applicant.  The commander's decision to impose NJP was based on the evidence of the case and his punishment decisions were well with the limits of his authority and discretion.

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 18 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 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-2017-03412 in Executive Session on 21 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 Jul 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atch 26 Oct 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 2 May 18.
Exhibit E. 	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 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.