RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03667

  	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 29 Mar 17, be removed from his records.
2.	He be reinstated into the Air Force.
3.	He be authorized Montgomery GI Bill benefits.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his record is in error and is unjust due to the character and witness statements that were collected from eyewitnesses at the party that corroborates his innocence; however, these statements were not carefully reviewed.  He feels that had they been considered, the evidence would clearly show that he was not guilty of Arkansas Criminal Code 5-27-209, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, nor was he guilty of violating any articles under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 Jul 14, the applicant initially entered active duty in the Regular Air Force.  

According to DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984, dated 1 Aug 14, the applicant enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill, see Exhibit B.

On 12 Apr 17, the applicant was notified that his commander intended to discharge him for minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons were:  The applicant failed to stop at a stop sign while driving on base; failed to refrain from consuming alcohol while under the legal drinking age; disobeyed a direct order while deployed to remain in the confines of his room while on quarters with dining facility and bathroom exceptions; fell asleep during a finance briefing, which was the second time he was caught sleeping during training and was instructed to stand up during the training; failed to ensure everyone drinking alcohol at a party the applicant hosted was of legal age; failed to control his guests and allowed those under the influence of alcohol to drive a passenger vehicle from his party; failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, and it was the second time in two months he had done so.

He acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  After a legal review, the case was found to be legally sufficient.  

The applicant received a under honorable conditions (general) was discharged after serving 2 years, 9 months, and 3 days of active service.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, D, and E.

Montgomery GI Bill is for active duty members who enroll and pay $100 per month for 12 months and are then entitled to receive a monthly education benefit once they have completed a minimum service obligation.  To use MGIB after separation from active duty, the discharge must be fully honorable.  Discharges “under honorable conditions” and “general” discharges do not establish eligibility for MGIB.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be reinstated on active duty.  DP2STM found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Even after receiving administrative documentation in attempt to curb the negative behavior, he was unable or unwilling to comply with standards.  Thus, the commander and discharge authority concluded that discharge action was necessary for the overall morale, good order and discipline of the unit.  Airmen are given an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization when the service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct or performance outweigh positive aspects of the applicant’s record. The discharge authority determined that the negative instances of misconduct outweighed any positive aspects of the applicant’s brief military career.  Therefore, the service characterization is correct as indicated.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested LOR.  Due to the events subsequent to the applicant’s house party, the unit commander had sufficient evidence and authority to issue a LOR for violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. However, if the board grants relief, to remove the Letter of Reprimand from the applicant’s records, no action is needed to remove it from his records because it no longer exists, since the LOR was destroyed when the applicant was separated.  If the Board grants the applicant’s request corrective actions should be considered to correct the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) to remove the derogatory comment regarding the LOR, dated 29 March 2017.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested LOR.  The applicant has failed to provide any evidence of error or injustice relating to his LOR and subsequent discharge. He states, “I believe the record to be in error and unjust because the character and witness statements collected from eyewitnesses at the party that corroborate my innocence were not carefully reviewed.”  However, he fails to state why he believes these statements were not reviewed, let alone provide evidence to support this assertion. The fact that he does not agree with the outcome of the process does not mean that there was error or injustice in the process.  Moreover, JA does not find any evidence in his military records to indicate that the LOR he is contesting, or the discharge action, were erroneous or unjust. 

With regard to his claim that he filed an application for redress under Article 138, UCMJ, to his commander, but it was never processed; the Little Rock AFB legal office and the 19th Logistics Readiness Squadron have no record of ever having received the application for redress. Further information from the applicant, such as when he provided the application, to whom, and how (such as via email or a hand-delivered hard copy) would be needed to properly evaluate this claim.

JA also notes that he has not provided any evidence to support an upgrade of his discharge service characterization based upon clemency.  Thus, there is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that a degree of clemency is warranted in the interest of justice.  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 4 Jan 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was 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 recommendations of AFPC/DP2STM, AFPC/DP2SSM, and AFPC/JA and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board notes the applicant requests MGIB benefits; however, he did not receive a fully honorable discharge and does not qualify for MGIB benefits.  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-2017-03667 in Executive Session on 1 Aug 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 15 Jul 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 9 Nov 17.
Exhibit D.  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSSM, dated 12 Dec 17.
Exhibit E.  Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 4 Jan 18.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 4 Jan 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 for Docket Number BC-2017-03667.