RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-02602

XXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable on his NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His discharge was caused by his severe lack in judgement and use of marijuana.  While this was a one-time occurrence, it was unacceptable and uncharacteristic of him.  Prior to the incident, his record was indicative of quality and dedication.  This trend continued after his discharge as a civil service employee in the United States Air Force Fire and Emergency Services.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement discussing his accomplishments, FBI Report, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, NGB Form 22, and a security clearance memorandum.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air National Guard staff sergeant (E-5).

Effective 24 Feb 03, NGB Form 22, reflects the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge from the Air National Guard after serving 3 years, 10 months and 26  days of net service this period.  He was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-Drug Abuse.”

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 19 Jul 22, the Board sent the applicant a request for any additional post-service information he may wish the Board to consider; however, he has not replied (Exhibit C).  The applicant did however, provide an FBI Identity History Summary Check, dated 3 Feb 21, with his initial application.  According to the report, the applicant has had no arrests since his discharge (Exhibit A).

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 19 Jul 22, the Board staff provided the applicant a copy of the OUSD Clemency Guidance (Exhibit C).

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

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.  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, and in the absence of post-service information provided by the applicant, 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-2021-02602 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 14 Jun 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary Evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atchs (OUSD Clemency Guidance), dated 19 Jul 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.