RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-03773

XXXX X. XXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  In the alternative, change the narrative reason for separation (misconduct) and the reentry code that will allow him to reenlist into any branch of the military.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His two terms of enlistment spanning five years of service were without blemish and included a Good Conduct Medal with clusters and this record of performance only changed after he returned home from a deployment to Afghanistan and found an unfaithful wife.  Clemency is in order due his accomplishments as an upstanding citizen since leaving the military as demonstrated by earning two degrees and graduating from the police academy.  He wants to serve his country again as a civilian with no restrictions from the category of his military separation. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

On 6 Feb 15, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions.  The squadron commander stated his separation could result in an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge; however, he was recommending the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The specific reasons for the action were as follows:

a.	On 1 Jul 14, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to obey a lawful order to check in at specific times established by his supervisor. 

b.	On 19 Sep 14, the applicant received an LOR for failure to report to work on time. 

c.	On 6 Oct 14, the applicant received an LOR for failure to follow a no contact order and for lying to his first sergeant about the location of furniture that was about to be repossessed for failure to resolve a debt.

d.	On 29 Dec 14, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from his place of duty without authority from on or about 21 Nov 14 until 12 Dec 14.

On 6 Feb 15, the applicant offered a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing with the waiver contingent upon receipt of no less than an a general (under honorable conditions) service characterization.

On 18 Feb 15, the applicant’s group commander accepted the applicant’s conditional administration discharge waiver of an administrative discharge board and directed the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge characterization, for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

On 24 Feb 15, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions). 

On 29 Apr 19, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), by majority vote, found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge.  The AFDRB found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 12 Mar 20, the Board sent the applicant liberal consideration/clemency guidance along with a request for post-service information, including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Exhibit C), which the applicant provided on 6 May 20 (Exhibit D).  According to the report, the applicant has had no arrests since discharge.
 
APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

On 25 Jul 18, the Under Secretary of Defense issued supplemental guidance (Wilke Memo) to military corrections boards in determining whether relief is warranted based on equity, injustice, or clemency.  These standards authorize the board to grant relief in order to ensure fundamental fairness.  Clemency refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and is a part of the broad authority Boards have to ensure fundamental fairness.  This guidance applies to more than clemency from sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  Each case will be assessed on its own merits.  The relative weight of each principle and whether the principle supports relief in a particular case are within the sound discretion of each Board.  In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, the Board should refer to the supplemental guidance, paragraphs 6 and 7. 

On 12 Mar 20, the Board staff provided the applicant this guidance (Exhibit C).

According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 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.

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/liberal consideration; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  The Board notes the applicant provided letters of support from former Air Force commanders and co-workers, and documentation of post-service education and graduation from a police academy.  However, the Board could not overlook the severity of his infractions in service, which still outweigh his post-service accomplishments.  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-2019-03773 in Executive Session on 22 Oct 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 14 Jul 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atchs, dated 12 Mar 20.
Exhibit D: Letter, FBI Report, dated 6 May 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.