RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-02149

	COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

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

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The military was downsizing and he wanted to go to college full time.  The base commander agreed and said he would receive a General discharge and once he got his degree, his discharge would be upgraded to Honorable.  He has received two degrees but never applied for the upgrade.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman first class (A1C).  

On 6 Jul 79, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Chapter 2, Section A, paragraph 2-4c for apathetic and defective attitude.  The specific reasons for the action were as follows:

	a. On 8 Feb 77, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for leaving his place of duty without authority.

	b.  On 11 May 77, the applicant received an LOR for failing to report for duty.

c.  On 19 Dec 77, the applicant received a Letter of Counselling (LOC) for failing to report to duty at the prescribed time on 14 Dec 77 and 18 Dec 77.

d.  On 27 Jan 78, the applicant received an LOR for failure to report to duty a the prescribed time on 15 Jan 78.

e.  On 24 Apr 78, the applicant received an LOC for his military appearance and grooming. 

f.  On 27 Sep 78, the applicant received a LOC for failure to report to duty.

g.  On 27 Feb 79, the applicant received an LOR for failure to report to duty.

h.  On 28 Mar 79, the applicant received a Certificate of Conviction for disorderly conduct.

i.  On 9 May 79, the applicant received a LOC for his military appearance and grooming.

j.  On 22 Jun 79, the applicant’s First Sergeant provide a statement that on 20 Jun 79, the applicant stated he wanted out of the service and that he did not care if he was given a General discharge.  He just wanted to get out the fastest way possible.  The applicant further stated he wanted to speak to the Commander about the possibility of getting out of the service with a General discharge.  The First Sergeant told him he would make the appointment with the commander to discuss this matter.

k.  On 26 Jun 79, the commander provided a statement noting he interviewed the applicant on 22 Jun 79, regarding his long time borderline behavior and attitude.  The applicant was keenly aware of the required AF standards and his past performance with regard to those standards.  The applicant stated he wished to separate from the Air Force as soon as possible and that he would even accept a General discharge.  The applicant was advised of the possible future consequences of a General discharge. 

On 3 Aug 79, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 6 Aug 79.

On 16 Aug 79, the applicant received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge. 

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 12 Jun 18, the Board sent the applicant a request for post-service information (Exhibit C), including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which the applicant provided on 2 Nov 18 (Exhibit D).  According to the report, the applicant was arrested on 28 Oct 78 for Criminal Possession Weapon-4th:Firearm/Weapon and 3 Mar 79 for Disorderly Conduct.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, incorporating changes through 8 Jun 17, paragraph 1.18, the types of service characterization are as follows: 

Honorable.  The quality of the airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

Under Honorable Conditions (General).  If an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, this characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record.

Under Other than Honorable Conditions.  When basing the reason for separation on a pattern of behavior or one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.  The member must have an opportunity for a hearing by an administrative discharge board or request discharge in lieu of trail by court-martial.  Examples of such behavior, acts, or omissions include, but are not limited to:

•	The use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death.

•	Abuse of a special position of trust.

•	Disregard by a superior of customary superior - subordinate relationships.

•	Acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States. 

•	Acts or omissions that endanger the health and welfare of other members of the Air Force.

•	Deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons.

•	Rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, rape of a child, sexual assault of a child, sexual abuse of a child, forcible sodomy and attempts to commit these offenses.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application is timely.  Given the requirement for passage of time, all clemency requests are technically untimely.  However, it would be illogical to deny a clemency application as untimely, since the Board typically looks for over 15 years of good conduct post-service.  Therefore, the Board declines to assert the three-year limitations period established by 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes 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, they did not find the evidence provided sufficiently compelling to warrant the approval of his request based on clemency.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2018-02149 in Executive Session on 16 Jan 20:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 25 May 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atch, dated 12 Jun 18.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response w/Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Investigative Report, and atchs, dated 2 Nov 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.