RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02571

		COUNSEL: NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His Reentry (RE) Code of “2B” (Discharged under general or 
other than honorable conditions) be changed so that he may 
reenlist and serve as a Chaplain’s Assistant.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was not warranted and he should have been mentored 
instead of punished.  He believes he was discharged due to his 
marital issues that he was having with his ex-wife.    

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 8 Mar 93.

On 17 Jul 95, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge due to a pattern of misconduct.  The 
reasons for the action included the applicant consuming alcohol 
while under the age of 21 and being drunk and disorderly, 
disobeying a lawful order by contacting his wife before a “no-
notice” health and welfare inspection on his home, speeding on 
base, having his quarters in a deplorable condition, disobeying 
a stop sign and driving without insurance, failing to obey a 
lawful order by not reporting to the element chief at the 
appointed time, dereliction of duty by leaving his quarters 
while being placed on quarters for 48 hours, and failing to obey 
a lawful order by not clearing housing within the specified 
time, for which he received two Letters of Counseling (LOC), two 
Letters of Reprimand (LOR), and three separate nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).

On 17 Jul 95, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
consulted with counsel and elected not to submit statements on 
his behalf.

On 20 Jul 95, the discharge action was found legally sufficient.

On 25 Jul 95, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 

On 28 Jul 95, the applicant was so discharged and was credited 
with 2 years, 4 months, and 28 days of total active service.

On 10 Feb 14, 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 C).

________________________________________________________________

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.  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 process.  Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the discharge authority’s discretion.  He 
has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe 
otherwise.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading 
the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the 
evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend 
granting the relief sought on that basis.  In view of the above, 
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that 
no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general discharge.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02571 in Executive Session on 18 Mar 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                     , Member
	                     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Feb 14.




Panel Chair
2