RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-02034

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

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

2. His Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty, Item 11, on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected (Will be administratively corrected).

3. His Military Education, Item 14, on his DD Form 214, be corrected (Will be administratively corrected).

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He was young and immature when he joined the military.  Since his discharge from the military, he has been a value-added employee with the Department of Defense, a park ranger with the Department of Interior, a wildland firefighter with the United States Department of Agriculture and is currently employed with the United States Army Installation Command.  His DD Form 214 needs to be corrected to include all of the training courses that he completed.  Additionally, he achieved his 3-skill level with completion of the Basic Loadmaster Course.  He would like the opportunity to reenlist and look back on his military service with pride.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

On 16 Jun 03, 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 a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The specific reasons for the action were as follows:

a.	On or about 13 Sep 02, the applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) for being late for a mandatory formation.

b.	On or about 14 Sep 02, the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an unfavorable information file was established for violating Phase 1 military standards under AETCI 36-2216, Administration of Military Standards and Discipline Training, by visiting a permanent party residence, smoking tobacco, and not wearing the proper uniform.

c.	On or about 30 Sep 02, the applicant received an LOR for being late for charge of quarters duty and being in violation of AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance, by failing to shave.

d.	On or about 19 Dec 02, the applicant received an LOC for failing to show for a mandatory formation.

e.	On or about 28 Jan 03, the applicant received an LOC for being derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to follow posted guidance in annotation procedures.

f.	On or about 10 Feb 03, the applicant received an LOR for failing to report to mandatory physical conditioning formation.

g.	On or about 13 Feb 03, the applicant received an LOC for being derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to follow proper guidance in changing room assignments.

h.	On or about 20 Feb 03, the applicant received punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

i.	On or about 16 Apr 03 and 17 Apr 03, the applicant received an LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

j.	On or about 5 May 03, the applicant received punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to obey a direct order by a noncommissioned officer and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

The staff judge advocate found the request for discharge legally sufficient, recommended that the request be approved, and that the applicant be separated with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation on 27 Jun 03.

On 2 Jul 03, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 10 Jun 19 and 16 Aug 19, the Board sent the applicant a standard request for post-service information.  This letter informed the applicant that a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check, available for under $20 from the FBI public website, would assist the Board in evaluating his/her case.  Although the applicant did reply to the request for post-service information (Exhibit D), his response did not include an FBI background check or other criminal history data.

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.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and the master of personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The record shows that the commander provided sufficient justification to the base discharge authority to support separation with the general service characterization.  The discharge authority determined that the significant negative aspects of the applicant’s behavior outweighed any positive aspects of the applicant’s brief military service.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 17 Apr 20 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

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, the Board does not find the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Accordingly, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2019-02034 in Executive Session on 20 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 24 Mar 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Post Service Clemency Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Jun 19 and 16 Aug 19.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response, dated 5 Sep 19.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 27 Dec 19.
Exhibit F:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 17 Apr 20.

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.