AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03419 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

I 4  1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
His narrative reason for discharge be  changed from  'IMisconduct- 
Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions"  to  "Convenience  of  the 
Government. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He performed his duties above and beyond what  is expected.  He 
was a victim of sel'ective enforcement by his supervisor who had a 
personal  conflict with  him  (applicant).  Applicant  states that 
his  supervisor  has  not  been  disciplined  for  his  unacceptable 
actions and remarks.  He  (applicant) does not want this discharge 
to negatively affect his future as a civilian. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

1993 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 December 
for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic  (E-1 
While  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  first  class, applicant's 
squadron  commander  notified  applicant  that  he  was  being 
recommended  for  discharge  for  misconduct  consisting  of  minor 
disciplinary infractions and, if the recommendation was approved, 
applicant's  service  would  be  characterized  as  general. 
The 
reasons were: 
(a)  On  or  about  3 0   November  1995,  applicant 
conducted  himself  in  an  dnprofessional  manner  and  failed  to 
follow  proper  procedures  by  reading  files  in  the  48  CPTF 
accounting  and  finance office going  through  another  squadron's 
files that he was not authorized to review (sic).  He received a 
Letter of  Reprimand on 6 December 1995 which was placed  in his 
Unfavorable Information File  (UIF) on 11 December 1995.  (b)  On 
He 
1 3   October  1995,  he  improperly  issued  a  ration  card. 
falsified government  documents by  stating he  destroyed  the  old 
ration card when the original ration card was never presented to 
the personnel and administration section for D T ~ ~ Q Y  

JesSt11cti- 

He received a Letter of Counseling on 16 October 1995.  (c)  On 
or about 29 March 1995, he was found trespassing upon the British 
Railway  by  the  British  Transport  Police. 
He  was  given  an 
official  police  caution  by  letter  from  the  British  Transport 
Police dated 3 0   March 1995.  (d)  On 22 March 1995, the squadron 
was not fully manned and he was told to reschedule an appointment 
he had made.  Applicant said no and went to the appointment.  He 
received a Letter of Counseling dated 3  April  1995.  (e)  On or 
about  12 December 1994, he  accessed the appointment system, in 
which  he  had  not  been  officially  trained,  and  booked  an 
appointment  in  a  slot  not  authorized  to  him.  He  received  a 
Letter of Reprimand dated 14 December 1994.  (f). On 30 November 
1994, he was rude and had a negative attitude while working the 
outpatient records customer service window.  Also, while looking 
for a record in the back  of  the office, he  slammed the records 
cart  in frustration that he  had  to look  for a misplaced record 
which he did not thoroughly search for.  He received a Letter of 
Counseling dated 5  December 1994.  (9)  On 23  November 1994, he 
was informed that if he wanted to travel to the Continent he must 
be on ordinary leave.  He took leave from 21 Nov 94 -  23 Nov 94 
and was found departing England for Germany.  He did not return 
to England, however, until 26 or 27 Nov  94.  He received a Memo 
for Record dated  5  December 1994.  (h)  On  9 November  1994, he 
was  not  at  his  duty  section  at  the  prescribed  time  and  also 
failed to obey an order to obtain a new office key.  He received 
a  letter of Reprimand dated  9 November  1994.  (i)  On 3  August 
1994, it  was  brought  to  the  attention of  his  squadron that he 
failed  to  attend  mandatory  briefings  and  displayed  a 
lackadaisical attitude towards his assigned duties.  He received 
a Letter of Counseling on 3 August  1994.  Applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the notification of discharge on 13 December 1995, and 
acknowledged  that  he  had  been  given  an  appointment  to  consult 
military  legal  counsel.  He  understood  that  this  action  may 
result  in  his  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  with  a  general 
discharge and  that  his  failure to consult counsel or to submit 
statements will constitute a waiver of his right to do so. 

The Wing Staff Judge Advocate  (SJA) reviewed the case and found 
it legally sufficient to support a finding that the applicant was 
subject to discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. 
Applicant was discharged on 12 January 1996 under the provisions 
of AFI 36-3208  (Misconduct) and his service was characterized as 
general, under honorable  conditions.  He served 2  years and  29 
days of active military service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  considered 
applicant's request for an upgrade of discharge to honorable and 
a change in the narrative reason for separation.  The AFDRB, on 
3 1   October 1997, found that neither evjdenre of  record nor that 

provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an  impropriety  which 
would  justify an upgrade of, or change of reason for discharge. 
However, based upon the record and the evidence provided by  the 
applicant, the board found that the applicant's characterization 
of  discharge was inequitable.  The AFDRB  further concluded that 
the  overall  quality  of  the  applicant's  service  was  more 
accurately  reflected  by  an  honorable  discharge  and  should  be 
changed  to  Honorable.  However,  the  AFDRB  determined  that  the 
reason for discharge was  appropriate due to the  factors of  the 
case and that no change of  the  reenlistment code was warranted 
other  than  the  change  from  2B  to  2C  reflecting  the  honorable 
characterization now in effect.  In accordance with policy, the 
application  was  forwarded  to  this  Board  for  further 
consideration. 

A copy of the AFDRB Brief is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The AFDRB  Brief  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for review and 
response  within  30  days  and  in  accordance  with  policy,  was 
subsequently forwarded to this Board  for further consideration. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that  his narrative reason for 
discharge should be changed from "Misconductii to 'IConvenience of 
the Government.''  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do 
not  find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by  themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB).  We note that when the 
applicant requested relief for a change in his characterization 
of discharge and a change of narrative reason for discharge, the 
AFDRB did upgrade applicant's discharge to honorable from general 
under honorable conditions.  The AFDRB concluded that the overall 
quality of the applicant's service was more accurately reflected 
by  an honorable discharge.  However, the AFDRB  determined that 
the  reason  for  discharge  (Minor Disciplinary  Infractions) was 
appropriate due to the factors of the case.  We fully concur with 
the findings of the AFDRB and adopt their rationale as the basis 
for  n r

'-3..  fT4'-d  to  sxst3ir  h:? 

 3?FJ_ic:rt 

  deci.sion  t h q t   V

i

r

k

burden  that  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 14 July 1998 under the provisions of AFI 3 6 -  
2603. 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 

DD Form 149, dated 14 May 97. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 31 Oct 97, w/atchs. 

Panel Chai