RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-04468

XXXXXXXXX					COUNSEL: NONE

							HEARING: NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General, Under Honorable Conditions, discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment does not fit the crime.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic.

On 12 Sep 06, the convening authority published Special Court-Martial Order Number 11.  The Order stated the applicant was found guilty of using his government travel card for other than official government travel, and failure to pay debt.  The applicant was sentenced to reduction to E-1, and discharge from the service with a bad conduct discharge (BCD).

On 3 Jun 09, Special Court-Martial Order Number 29 stated the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed specification 2 of Charge II, and reassessed the sentence by approving only so much of the sentence as provided for a bad conduct discharge and reduction to the grade of E-3.

On 12 Aug 09, the applicant was furnished a BCD.

On 6 Dec 16, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) voted to upgrade his service characterization to general, under honorable conditions.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP does not make a recommendation.  

The DRB considered his case through a records only review board on 7 Jun 12 and voted unanimously to deny the applicant's request to upgrade his service characterization, change the discharge narrative reason, and change his reenlistment eligibility code.  The DRB considered his case a second time on 6 Dec 16 through a personal appearance (via video teleconference) before the board, without counsel.  The board voted 3 to 2 to upgrade his service characterization to General.  For his second request, the applicant did not ask for a change to his discharge narrative reason or reenlistment eligibility code, so they were not considered.

The applicant received a BCD as a result of a Special Court-Martial conviction, the DRB considered his case both times as a clemency request.  The applicant has exhausted all possible remedies through the DRB, his next level of appeal is the BCMR.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  

The applicant was discharged following conviction at a Special Court-Martial.  He does not allege any legal or procedural error in his court-martial.  The applicant’s sentence was well within the maximum limits afforded by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  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 31 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

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.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  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.  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-2017-04468 in Executive Session on 4 Sep 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Panel Member
	, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 17.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBP, dated 8 Dec 17.
Exhibit D:  Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 25 Jun 18.
Exhibit E:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 31 Jul 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.