RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-00003

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

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

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His discharge was unfair because his actions that led up to the discharge were based on saving his father’s life.  His father was a Vietnam veteran who had served in the United States Marine Corps.  He had been exposed to Agent Orange and had numerous medical issues, which ultimately destroyed his kidneys.  He received approval from his squadron commander to return home in  Mar 00 for surgery to donate a kidney to his father.  When he returned to the base, he was met with charges of damaging government property.  He was reduced in rank and forced to take an under honorable conditions discharge for misconduct.  There is not much the upgrade will do for him now; however, the loss of benefits he could have received would have afforded him the opportunity to go to college.  Since being discharged, he has been a dedicated servant in his community and a member of his local fire department.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman (E-2).

On 11 Sep 00, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen for misconduct—pattern of misconduct.  The specific reasons for the action were as follows:

a.	 On 31 Dec 99, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.

b.	On 28 Nov 99, the applicant received an LOR for making and uttering to a car dealership a certain check in payment of a debt and dishonorably failed to maintain sufficient funds in his bank account for payment.

c.	On 21 Aug 00, the applicant received Nonjudicial Punishment, consisting of reduction to the grade of airman suspended through 20 Feb 01, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for two months suspended through 20 Feb 01, 30 days extra duty and a reprimand.  The punishment was due to the applicant making an official statement on 14 Jul 00, with intent to deceive, which statement was false and the applicant knew it to be false.

d.	On 25 Aug 00, the applicant’s suspended portion of his Nonjudicial Punishment was vacated for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

On 21 Sep 00 [sic], the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 26 Sep 00.

On 28 Sep 00, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is Misconduct.

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 26 Mar 19 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 9 Aug 19 (Exhibit D).  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 June 2017, 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-2019-00003 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 1 Feb 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Mar 19.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response, dated 9 Aug 19.

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.