RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-01013

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His narrative reason for separation be changed to “Completion of Service.”

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His narrative reason for separation is an untrue reason.  Based on his training records and performance of duty, he performed his duties well above his pay grade in an exemplary manner.  His commander did not like him.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman first class (E-3).  

On 8 Mar 82, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reasons for the action were:

a.	On 17 Feb 82, he received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty.  He was reduced to the grade of airman first class.
	
b.	On 13 Nov 81, he received a letter of counseling (LOC) for failure to comply with AFR 35-10, Dress and Appearance Standards.  

c.	On 24 Mar 81, he received a LOC for failure to obey a lawful order.

d.	On 2 Feb 81, he received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for committing a safety violation during a pre-flight inspection.

e.	On 25 Apr 80, he received a LOC for failure to report to duty at the prescribed time.

f.	On 5 Mar 80, he was counseled for writing bad checks with insufficient funds in his account.

g.	On 25 Jan 80, he was counseled for writing bad checks with insufficient funds in his account.

h.	On 14 Jan 80, his base driving privileges were suspended due to an accumulation of four non-moving traffic violations.

i.	On 26 Dec 80, he received a LOC for three non-moving traffic violations.

On 8 Mar 82, the applicant acknowledged the recommendation for discharge.  

On 15 Mar 82, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the discharge action legally sufficient. However, the SJA recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.  On 17 Mar 82, the discharge evaluation officer recommended retention. The basis of the recommendation was that the applicant was promoted to senior airman (E-4); thus prior misconduct should not be considered since by promoting the applicant, it was determined he was fit for duty.  Secondly, there was confusion on his latest Article 15 that the evaluation officer was not convinced that an offense occurred.  The discharge authority was advised he could retain the applicant on active duty or discharge him with an honorable discharge.  The SJA recommended against probation and rehabilitation and that he be discharged with an honorable discharge.  The applicant had repeated and various acts of misconduct which show his poor attitude toward military service.

On 31 Mar 82, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.  Probation and rehabilitation were considered but not offered.

On 6 Apr 82, the applicant received an honorable discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is “Unsuitability-Apathy, Defective Attitude.”   He served three years, four months and nine days of active duty service.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSR recommends denial.  The base discharge authority determined the applicant’s attitude and conduct could no longer be tolerated and that discharge was in the best interest of the Air Force.  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation and separation program designator as indicated on the DD Form 214 are correct.  There is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 25 Aug 21 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.  

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.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSR and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.
Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; 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-2021-01013 in Executive Session on 15 and 26 Sep 21:

 , 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 20 Nov 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary Evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 13 Jul 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 25 Aug 21.

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.