RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-03231

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

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

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

In retrospect, his record is correct based on the offences committed, however, since discharge, his solid work ethics, established longevity and dependability, and community service for 15 years through Knights of Columbus Councils, warrant upgrading his discharge for clemency.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic (E-1).  

On 20 Sep 84, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reasons for the action were as follows:

a. On 5 Sep 84, he received a Letter of reprimand for failing to attend a scheduled appointment with Mental Health.

b. On 14 Aug 84, he received an Article 15 for wrongfully using a govern­ment telephone to place a long distance phone call. 

c. On 8 Aug 84, he received a Letter of Reprimand for not complying with AFR 35-10. 

d. On 31 Jul 84, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. 

e. On 10 Apr 84, he received a Letter of Counseling for failure to go to a mandatory formation. 
f. On 5 Apr 84, he was counseled by a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) for parking in a pro­hibited area. 

g. On 4 Apr 84, he received a Letter of Counseling for not complying with safety procedures. 

h. On 25 Oct 83, he received a Letter of Counseling for disobeying an NCO assigned to his section. 

i. On 9 Sep 83, he received a Letter of .Counseling for disobeying an NCO assigned to his section. 

j. On 25 Aug 83, he received a Letter of Counseling for failure to be at his appointed place of duty.

k. On 6 Jul 83, he received an Article 15 for the wrongful use of marijuana.

l. On 21 Apr 83, he received a Letter of Counseling for not being at his appointed place of duty.  

On 25 Sep 84, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 27 Sep 1984.

On 2 Oct 84, the applicant received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge. 

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 26 Sep 18, the Board sent the applicant a request for post-service information, including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which the applicant provided on 12 Feb 19 (Exhibit A).  According to the report, the applicant has had no arrests since discharge.  

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, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  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-2018-03231 in Executive Session on 5 Aug 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 12 Feb 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Clemency Bulletin, dated 26 Sep 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.