RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05056 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be awarded the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR). 2. His General Under Honorable Discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 3. His Reenlistment (RE) code be changed from 2B (discharged under General or Other-Than-Honorable conditions) to 2C (involuntary separation with Honorable discharge). 4. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be updated to reflect the “excellent” rating his squadron received on their Inspector General (IG). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The administration office which typed his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, must have inadvertently omitted his SAEMR and his squadron’s excellent IG rating. As for his discharge, not completing his full term of enlistment is not justification for denying him an Honorable discharge. He refutes his Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 7 Nov 84, 16 Nov 84, and 19 Dec 84, and his Article 15, dated 23 May 85. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________ ______________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 3 Apr 84. On 7 Nov 84, 16 Nov 84, and 19 Dec 84, the applicant received LORs for failure to report to his appointed place of duty, leaving his place of duty, and failure to go to his appointed place of duty, respectively. On 23 May 85, the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ. For this, he was reduced in grade to airman basic, forfeited one half of one month’s pay per month for two months, received 30 days in correctional custody and 45 days of extra duty. On 3 Jun 85, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge for misconduct; specifically, a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 14 Jun 85, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Separation of ”Misconduct—Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline,” an RE code of “2B,” and was credited with 1 year, 2 months, and 11 days of active service. On 29 May 12, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the SAEMR, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant contends he qualified with the M-16 rifle and .38 caliber handgun and the SAEMR is missing from his records. The SAEMR is awarded to all US Air Force members who qualify as “expert” in small arms marksmanship with either the M-16 or issue handgun. A thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel records and the documentation he submitted with his application reveals no information which verifies the applicant qualifies for the SAEMR. There is insufficient documentation to support the applicant’s request. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 with respect to the applicant’s request for the small arms expert marksman ribbon (SAEMR). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice regarding award of the SAEMR. Concerning the applicant’s request to upgrade his General discharge to Honorable, based on the available evidence of record it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to his activities since leaving the service, we find no basis for us to recommend upgrading the characterization of his discharge on that basis. Further, concerning the applicant’s request for updating his DD Form 214 with the results of his squadron’s IG inspection, IG inspection results are not authorized to be placed on the DD Form 214. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2012-05056 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Jan 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 May 13. Panel Chair