RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05291 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the contested time period he was young and immature. He believes he was a victim of base closings and personnel reductions. Because of his general discharge, he has been turned away for job opportunities. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 January 1989. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10. The specific reasons are as follows: a. On or about 29 June 1989, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties. He failed to properly maintain his dormitory room according to inspection standards. b. The applicant did between on or about 27 June 1989 and 3 July 1989, disobey AFR 35-10, by coming to work in a wrinkled and soiled uniform. c. The applicant did from on or about 11 July 1989 to 14 July 1989, disobey an order by not getting his hair cut. d. The applicant did from on or about 10 August 1989 to on or about 12 August 1989, disobey an order by not getting his hair cut. For this misconduct the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). e. The applicant did on or about 24 August 1989 absent himself from his unit and did remain absent until 25 August 1989. For this misconduct the applicant received a LOR. f. The applicant did on or about 26 August 1989 fail to go to his appointed place of duty. For this misconduct the applicant received a LOR. g. The applicant did on or about 5 September 1989 make a false statement with the intent to deceive. For this misconduct the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. h. The applicant did on or about 5 September 1989, unlawfully alter a public record. For this misconduct the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. i. The applicant did from on or about 12 September 1989 to 26 September 1989, fail to meet standards in Correctional Custody. He was advised of his rights in this matter. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged. The applicant was discharged on 13 October 1989 with a general discharge. He served 8 months and 24 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. 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. 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, or unduly harsh. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency at this time. However, the Board is willing to reconsider the applicant’s request and have included an Information Bulletin to assist the applicant in submitting a future request. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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-2012-05291 in Executive Session on 13 August 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 October 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 2 3