RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-02250

xxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

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

2.  His Social Security Number (SSN) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected (No Board Action Needed).

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His discharge status should be reviewed.  He is a Gulf War Veteran that never did anything wrong to hurt his country.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

On 22 Aug 91, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFI 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-46 for minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons for the action were:

a.  On 8 Mar 90, the applicant received a traffic ticket for speeding.
	
b.  On 2 Aug 90, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) was issued for wrongfully entering the dormitory room of another airman without permission.

c.  On 20 Aug 90, an LOR was issued for leaving the scene of an accident after striking a privately owned vehicle with a forklift.

d.  On 16 Aug 91, AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, indicates the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), Article 15 for theft. He received a reduction in grade to airman (E-2) and forfeiture of pay of $200 for two months.

On 29 Aug 91, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient.

On 30 Aug 91, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged for minor disciplinary infractions, with a general service characterization.  Probation and rehabilitation was considered, but not offered.

On 4 Sep 91, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct (Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions)” and he was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 15 days of total active service.

On 21 Oct 91, DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, indicates his SSN was corrected.

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 2 Sep 20, the Board sent the applicant a request for post-service information and advised the applicant he was required to provide a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Identity History Summary Check, which would indicate whether or not he had an arrest record.  In the alternative, the applicant could provide proof of employment in which background checks are part of the hiring process (Exhibit C).  The applicant replied on 17 Jan 22 and provided an FBI report.  According to the report, the applicant has had no arrests since discharge.  The applicant also provided photographs, copies of his military kudos, business awards, and a Certificate of Ordination.  The applicant contends after the Gulf War he struggled to find his identity; he was young and has learned a lot since his discharge.  He is an ordained deacon in his church and a pillar in his community.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.
 
APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

On 25 Jul 18, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued supplemental guidance 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 2 Sep 20, the Board staff provided the applicant a copy of the liberal consideration guidance (Exhibit C).

AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, describes the types of service characterizations: 

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 was timely filed.  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 limitation 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.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  The applicant has provided no evidence that would lead the Board to believe his service characterization was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. 

Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge.  In support of his request for an upgrade, the applicant has provided photographs, an FBI report with no evidence of arrests since his discharge, his military awards, business awards, and a Certificate of Ordination.  He also contends he supports his local community as an Ordained Deacon and has been a model citizen.  However, the evidence he provides lacks references that demonstrate his character, post-service rehabilitation, service to the community, or any degree of remorse pertaining to his in-service conduct. The Board contemplated the many principles included in the Wilke Memo to determine whether to grant relief based on an injustice or fundamental fairness.  Furthermore, the Board considered the applicant’s post service conduct and achievements, length of time since the misconduct, his character and reputation, service to the community, job history and degree of contrition.  However, given the evidence presented, the Board determined relief is not warranted. Additionally, the applicant asked that his SSN be corrected on his DD Form 214.  On 21 Oct 91, the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 correcting his SSN.

The applicant retains the right to request reconsideration of this decision, which could be in the form of a personal statement, character statements, or testimonials from community leaders/members specifically describing how his efforts in the community have impacted others.  Should the applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service accomplishments and activities, this Board would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration of his request based on fundamental fairness.  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-2020-02250 in Executive Session on 1 Sep 22:

, 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 2 Jun 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary Evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atchs (Post-Service Request and Clemency                     
                  Guidance), dated 2 Sep 20.
Exhibit D: Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 17 Jan 22.

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.