RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03778

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served honorably from 16 Mar 86 through 6 Jul 17, which is his post-service period.  However, after he received a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), he noticed the DD Form 214 he received and the one he received from the NPRC were different.  He would like these forms to beclosely examined.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Mar 86, 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, paragraph 5-46.  The specific reason for the action was for “Misconduct-Pattern Of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.”

On 18 Mar 86, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 19 Mar 86.

On 16 Mar 86, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge after serving 11 months and 23 days of active service.  

The Board sent a copy of the Clemency Bulletin to the applicant on 20 Nov 17 for comment (Exhibit C).  

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

AFPC/DP2STM verified the applicant’s service dates and generated a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, to correct his records to reflect the following:

	Item 12b, Separation Date This Period, as 19 Mar 86, rather than 16 Mar 86.
	Item 12c, Net Active Service This Period, as 1 year, 1 month, and 12 days, rather than                   
            11 months and 23 days.
	Item 12e, Total Prior Inactive Service, as 6 months and 12 days, rather than 5 months and  
            11 days.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial.  The commander provided sufficient documentation to the base discharge authority to support the separation and character of service.  Furthermore, the DD Form 214 member “Copy 1” that the applicant provided does not normally indicate the reason for discharge or the service characterization.  Those items are included on service Copy 2 and member Copy 4, which should have also been provided to the applicant after discharge.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and the master of personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  DP2STM recognizes that due to the length of time since his discharge, the Board could consider granting the request based on clemency.      

DP2STM notes that the applicant’s Date of Separation (DOS) is incorrect on the original DD Form 214.  The correct DOS should reflect 19 Mar 86 and a DD Form 215 has been accomplished to administratively correct his record.  This information was verified by separation documents that were found in the applicant’s record (separation orders and discharge documentation), along with a check of the military personnel database.  Since DD Forms 214 were manually prepared during that timeframe, it appears to be a typographical error.  This minor error has no bearing on the reason for discharge or character of service and can be corrected after the Board decides the other aspects of the case.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application.  The applicant was properly notified that his commander was recommending a general service characterization, and he acknowledged that he was eligible for a general service characterization.  The applicant signed Copy 4 of his DD Form 214 and the AFPC/DP2STM advisory indicates he should have been provided a copy after his discharge.  Additionally, there are multiple instances where prospective employers were told the applicant’s service characterization was a general.  Without evidence to the contrary, it would appear that the applicant was on notice that he did not receive an honorable discharge.

The complete advisory opinion 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 Aug 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.  The discharge was not 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, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any relief beyond that rendered administratively.

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 issue 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-2017-03778 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 18:

, Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 7 Aug 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Clemency Bulletin, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jan 18.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 18 Jul 18.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 20 Jul 18.
Exhibit F: Notification Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Aug 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.