RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-01538

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE

 	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

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

2.	His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so he can reenlist in the Armed Forces.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His minor infractions are not reflective of his character or dedication to the Air Force.  He has an ongoing complaint with the Inspector General (IG) office at XXXXX Air Force Base and a congressional complaint alleging racial discrimination.  He recently had undergone surgery to remove his wisdom teeth which left him in pain and in the emergency room throughout 2017 and 2018.  Before this procedure, he had never taken narcotics or had any other surgeries.  He was given oxycodone and valium for the pain along with limited duty which was not honored by his leadership.  His behavior which was characterized as “minor infractions” was due to the drugs he was prescribed.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, Congressional and IG complaint submissions, and articles referencing racial bias against black airmen in the Air Force.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

On 4 Mar 20, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49 for minor disciplinary infraction.  The specific reasons for the action were:

a.	On 18 Feb 20, AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, indicates applicant received nonjudicial punishment, Article 15 for disorderly conduct.  He received a reduction in grade to airman (E-2), suspended until 19 Aug 20, restricted to base for 30 days, and 30 days of extra duty.

b.	On 27 Mar 20, AF Form 366, Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, indicates the applicant violated Article 92 for dereliction of duty and refraining from consuming alcohol.  The applicant was reduced to the grade of airman with a new Date of Rank (DOR) of 21 Feb 20.

c.	On 30 Apr 18, AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), for the period of 22 Mar 17 thru 31 Mar 18, indicates the applicant received a referral EPR for meeting some but not all expectations noting he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go, dereliction of duty, and forgery.

On 7 Apr 20, the applicant’s commander revised his recommendation adding additional minor disciplinary infractions; leaving without authorization, failing to report on time, and consumption of alcohol and failing to report hospitalization.

On 22 Apr 20, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged for minor disciplinary infractions, with a general service characterization.  Probation and rehabilitation was considered, but deemed not appropriate.

On 8 May 20, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct (Minor Infractions)” and he was credited with 4 years, 7 months, and 17 days of total active service.

On 14 Sep 20, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge, to change the discharge narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority”, and to change the RE code to “2C” or “3K.”

On 17 Feb 21, the AFDRB determined that through the administrative actions taken by the chain of command in this case, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  It took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, awards and decorations, and other accomplishments.  The Board found the seriousness of the applicant’s willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of his service.  They concluded that there was not enough evidence to support the applicant’s contentions of inequity.  After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board’s psychiatrist/psychologist, the AFDRB found no conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge.  If the applicant can provide additional information such as copies of the IG complaints and/or congressional submissions that would substantiate his contentions, the board recommends he exercise the right to directly appeal the AFDRB’s decision to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFCMR).

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

On 25 Jul 18, the Under Secretary of Defense 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 22 Jul 21, the Board staff provided the applicant a copy of the 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.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSR recommends denying the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge finding no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The commander provided ample justification to the Base Separations Authority (BSA) to substantiate the discharge and the character of service.  The BSA determined that the significant negative aspects of the applicant’s behavior outweighed any positive aspects off the applicant’s military service.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his RE code to allow reentry into the military.   There is no evidence of an error or injustice in reference to applicant’s RE code based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts.  The applicant was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct, Minor Infractions” on 8 May 20 with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service after serving 4 years, 7 months, and 17 days of service.  His RE code was updated to “2B” which denotes “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge”, based on his involuntary discharge with a general character of 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 22 Nov 21 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was 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.  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.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DP2SSR and AFPC/DP2SSM finding a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  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-2021-01538 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 21 and 23 Dec 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 8 May 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary Evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC (Clemency Consideration Guidance), dated 22 Jul 21.
Exhibit D:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 23 Jul 21.
Exhibit E:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 28 Jul 21.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 22 Nov 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.