RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01495 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. His narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect something other than “Misconduct.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It has been difficult for him to gain employment and/or job interviews with the type of discharge indicated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 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 Apr 81. On 8 Jun 83, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. The reasons for the action included the applicant failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, being absent from his place of duty without authority, operating a vehicle while drunk, and resisting apprehension, for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and two separate nonjudicial punishment (NJP) actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), respectively. On 20 Jun 83, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 13 days of total active service. On 22 May 85, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, but denied the request because the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. On 13 Jan 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 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/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. 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’s record indicates he received counseling regarding his misconduct and the impact it had on his career. His commander tried to rehabilitate him by using rehabilitative tools such as, Article 15 action, formal and informal counseling. The applicant did not accept responsibilities and failed to adhere to Air Force policies regarding his misconduct. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 17 Jun 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. 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. 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 are not convinced it would be appropriate to recommend relief be granted on that basis. In view of the foregoing, and 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-2013-01495 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 23 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jan 14. Panel Chair 3