RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03587 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct” be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was traumatized in technical school and never received help from the Air Force. This interfered with his conduct and military career. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 December 1991. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 – Misconduct. The specific reasons follow: a. The applicant did between 15 July 1993 and 22 June 1994 receive numerous Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for the underage consumption of alcohol, disobeying a lawful order, and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. b. The applicant did between 12 December 1992 and 16 December 1993 receive numerous Records of Counseling (ROCs) for failing to go and refusing to obey an order. c. The applicant did between 15 November 1993 and 21 June 1994 receive two Article 15s, Records of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, for failing to go and for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority. He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 8 July 1994. He served 2 years 7 months and 4 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. They state the applicant’s service to the Air Force reflects significant negative aspects (failures to go and absence without authority) which outweigh his positive contributions. A general discharge tells others that while the applicant performed his duties in a generally acceptable manner, his misconduct significantly detracted from his overall performance. The applicant’s records show he was counseled by supervisors, first sergeants, and commanders on various occasions. The applicant’s retention on active duty was determined not to be in the interest of the Air Force, nor consistent with good order and discipline. Discharge on the basis of a pattern of misconduct is amply supported by the documentation of two actions under Article, UCMJ, against the applicant. Before recommending this discharge, the applicant’s commander stated he ensured rehabilitation efforts were made. Despite having had every opportunity to correct substandard behavior, the applicant refused to take responsibility for his actions. The applicant repeatedly demonstrated his unwillingness to adhere to military standards. The applicant showed little rehabilitative potential considering his repeated acts of misconduct. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 November 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03587 in Executive Session on 16 April 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03587 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 August 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 November 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 November 2012.