RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2017-03977

	COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly separated from the Air Force for failing to meet weight standards.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former staff sergeant.

On 2 Mar 87, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for unsatisfactory performance, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The reasons for the action included failure to maintain satisfactory progress in the Weight Management Program, substandard duty performance, falsifying a shop log book to give the appearance he performed equipment checks, and failure to account for CO2 bottles before and after packing life support equipment; for which he received a referral evaluation report, two Letters of Counseling, four Letters of Reprimand, a non-recommendation for promotion, and was placed on a control roster on two separate occasions.  The commander did not recommend the applicant for probation and rehabilitation due to his ongoing poor performance displayed, despite being given multiple opportunities to improve.  On this same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge.

On 11 Mar 87, the applicant requested that an administrative discharge board hear his case; however, on 6 Apr 87, he rescinded his initial request and waived his right to a hearing, contingent upon receiving no less than a general discharge.

On 7 Apr 87, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient, and on 15 Apr 87, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without the offer of additional probation or rehabilitation.

On 27 Apr 87, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit D.

A request for post-service was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Nov 17, for review and comment (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  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.  A 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 26 Mar 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.  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-2017-03977 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, w/atch, dated 13 Nov 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 14 Mar 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 Mar 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.