RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00614 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable, his narrative reason for separation be changed, and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist into the Army. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His ability to serve was impaired due to his youth and immaturity. He has combat time and received decorations and awards. He has volunteered for the Special Olympics and has done his best to be a model citizen since his discharge. Under the current standards he could be allowed to reenlist into the Army. In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a character reference email. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 23 Aug 89, for a term of four years. On 9 Oct 91, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct. The commander recommended he receive a general (under other than honorable conditions) discharge. The bases for the commander’s recommendation were that: a. On 20 Jun 90, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), for issuing nine worthless checks and thereafter failed to maintain sufficient funds in his checking account. b. On 26 Jul 90, he received an LOR for failure to obey a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer in the course of his duties when he did not remain on standby, but instead became intoxicated and subsequently incapacitated for duty. c. On 17 Jan 91, he received an LOR, for failure to maintain his dormitory room to dorm standards. d. On 30 Jan 91, he received an LOR, for dereliction in the performance of his duties by not remaining attentive on his post, as it was his duty to do. e. On 14 May 91, he received an LOR, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed when he reported late for his duties on 11,12,13,and 14 Feb 91. f. On 14 May 91, he received a LOR for not replacing his AF Form 1199 as ordered, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Other derogatory information which was used in determining the characterization of discharge was that on 30 Jul 91, he received an Article 15 for being found sleeping while posted as a sentinel at V-2 of the MAC ramp. He was reduced to airman, received 30 days correctional custody and forfeited $100 per month for two months. On or about 21 Aug 91, he failed to progress and meet the standards of correctional custody and was removed from correctional custody. He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, and after consulting with counsel, waived his rights to submit statements in his own behalf. The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and found to be legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. He was separated on 12 Nov 91, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (misconduct-pattern of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline) and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with an RE code of 2B “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.” He served 2 years, 2 months and 22 days of total active duty service. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 28 May 08, that on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record. (Exhibit C) ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states, the RE code of 2B is correct for this type of discharge. They found no evidence of error or injustice and the applicant did not submit any evidence. The DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Mar 08, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After careful consideration of the available evidence, the Board found no indication the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations at the time, or that the actions taken against him were unjust. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant upgrade of the discharge on the basis of clemency. We have considered applicant's overall quality of service and the offenses leading to his separation. However, based on the evidence of record and in the absence of documentation pertaining to his post-service accomplishments, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. In view of the above, we cannot recommend approval based on the current evidence of record. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2008-00614 in Executive Session on 10 Jul 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 2 Feb 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Negative Response, dated 28 May 08. Exhibit D. Memo, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 Mar 08. Exhibit E. Memo, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Mar 08. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 08. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 May 08, w/atch. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Panel Chair