RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04804 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the United States Air Force or, as an alternative, his characterization of discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unfairly discharged as there was insufficient basis for the discharge. His reprimands were controversial and he made a reprisal complaint against his supervisor which was never investigated. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, a statement from his counselor, and copies of his discharge file. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 4 January 2011 to 14 March 2013. The applicant received one Letter of Counseling (LOC) and four Letters of Reprimand (LORs) between 4 November 2011 and 19 December 2012. On 23 January 2013, he was notified of his commander’s intent of recommending him for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for “Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s notification and submitted a statement in his own behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation or rehabilitation. The applicant was released from active duty on 13 March 2013 and discharged effective 14 March 2013 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service and a narrative reason for separation as “Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” He served 2 years, 2 months, and 11 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the separation program designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, and characterization of service, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of his discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He respectfully requests a reexamination of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) definition of false official statement and the removal of this alleged offense from consideration of his client’s request for either reinstatement onto active duty or an upgrade to his discharge characterization. The counsel’s complete rebuttal is at 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission to include counsel’s rebuttal in judging the merits of the case; however, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed these contentions and we are in agreement with their recommendation. While we note the applicant’s counsel believes an error occurred with regard to the applicant’s “official statement,” sufficient evidence has not been provided which would persuade us that the commander acted inappropriately in deciding to issue the applicant a Letter of Reprimand or that his decision represented an abuse of discretionary authority in making that decision. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04823 in Executive Session on 24 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04823: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Dec 13. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Counsel, dated 23 May 14. Panel Chair 2 3