. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

MARIO C. DECERDA 

5 7 3 - 7 6 - 5 0 9 5  

DOCKET NUMBER:  98- 01083 
INDEX CODE:  110.00 
COUNSEL:  DAV 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

-F€B  2 6  1999 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
His under other than honorable  conditions  (UOTHC) discharge be 
changed to general  (under honorable conditions). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or 
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at 
Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from 
the  applicant's military  records, are  contained  in  the  letter 
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, 
there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this  Record  of 
Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Separations  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program 
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states 
that the discharge authority indicates the type of discharge was 
appropriate  based  on  applicant's  record  during  his  current 
enlistment. 
Applicant  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or 
identify  any  errors  in  the  discharge  proceedings.  Therefore, 
they recommend denial of applicant's request. 

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
The  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  HQ  AFPC/JA,  also  reviewed  this 
application and states that when applying the standards from the 
Air  Force  Instruction  36- 3208,  Administrative  Separation  of 
Airmen, Chapter 4, to applicant's approximate 40 days of service, 
they are unable to come to the conclusion that his service was 

98-01083 

either honest  or faithful.  In  fact, these 40 days of  service 
were  spread out  over nearly  28 years and  interrupted by  three 
undisputed acts of misconduct, and Absent Without Leave  (AWOL) , 
an  escape  from  correctional  custody, and  a  more  than  27-year 
desertion  terminated  by  apprehension. 
In  their  opinion,  an 
honorable discharge  would  be  totally  inappropriate.  Likewise, 
they  conclude  that  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions) 
discharge is also inappropriate.  Applicant's 40 days of service 
marred as it was by three criminal acts simply does not meet the 
standard  of  honest  and  faithful  as  required  for  a  discharge 
characterization  of  general  (under  honorable  conditions). 
Without even considering applicant s  arguments to the contrary, 
the commander's decision to discharge applicant under other than 
honorable  conditions  was  appropriate  based  on  the  nature  of 
applicant's service and the basis for the discharge.  It was not 
only  authorized,  it  was  also  the  service  characterization 
recommended  by  the  appropriate  governing  directives  and 
instructions. 
Applicant  would  argue  that  because  he  was  informed  in October 
1996, that  his  records contained a discharge  certificate dated 
28 June  1969, he  was  discharged on  that  date  from  active duty 
service.  It seems incongruent that applicant's alleged discharge 
from active duty could have predated his return from his initial 
AWOL, his Article  15 punishment  in correction custody, and  his 
desertion from the Air  Force.  Given the date of  the discharge 
applicant claims to have relied on, he could not, in good faith, 
have honestly believed that the Air Force had discharged him from 
active  duty. 
A  reasonably  prudent  individual  would  have 
questioned  the  validity  of  the  discharge  certificate  and  then 
inquired about  outstanding arrest warrants.  Applicant  did  not 
make these inquiries and, had he done so, he would have learned 
it  was  merely  a  certification  of  his  separation  from  the  Air 
Force  Reserve  pursuant  to  his  entry  into  an  active  duty 
enlistment.  This  lack  of  due  diligence  overcomes  applicant's 
claimed  reliance  on  the  representation  that  a  discharge  had 
occurred. 
Applicant  would  have  the  Board  believe  that  he  deserted  under 
duress.  Even  if  applicant's story--that while  in correctional 
custody a supervisor pushed his head through a window, is true, 
the incident would not  justify escape from correctional custody 
and  desertion  for  nearly  28  years. 
Such  an  incident  would 
warrant a breach of correctional custody to report the offense to 
proper authorities and seek medical treatment, but  not a flight 
of nearly three decades.  While the incidents leading up to his 
desertion are relevant, they simply do not overcome the length of 
his  desertion  coupled with  his  earlier  AWOL.  Therefore, they 
recommend denial of applicant's request. 

2 

A complete copy of their Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reviewed  the  evaluations and  states  that  HQ  AFPC/JA 
states  that  "it  seems  incongruent  that  applicant's  alleged 
discharged  from active duty  could  have  (asserted by  applicant) 
predated  his  return  from  his  initial  AWOL,  his  Article  15 
punishment in correction custody, and his desertion from the Air 
Force.  Given  the  date  of  discharge  applicant  claims  to  have 
relied on, he  could not, in good faith, have  honestly believed 
that the Air  Force had discharged from active duty.Il  He finds 
that very condescending and implying a lack of intelligence.  He 
states he wrote to the National  Personnel Records Center  (NPRC) 
to  find  out  what  his  status was  regarding the Air  Force.  He 
submitted to NPRC a detailed history of his Absent Without Leave 
(AWOL) status, le  ' 
ectional custody, and he informed them 
that  he  moved  to 
NPRC  sent  him  documentation stating 
ble discharge. 
that he received 
AFPC/JA also states that  llapplicant would have the Board believe 
that he deserted under duress;" applicant states he does not know 
when a person is scared and distrustful of authority, except when 
the authority figure is the person threatening you.  He believes 
correct or not, that while  in correctional custody the sergeant 
meant to hurt him and he was scared and had no faith in the Air 
Force. 
He  escaped  from correctional custody nearly  three  decades ago, 
found  a home  in 
where  he  was  accepted  as  a person  not 
based on ethnic origin.  He became a citizen, married to the same 
woman  for  19  years,  became  an  addictions  counselor  with  the 
British  Columbia  Government,  and  a  director  of  an  outpatient 
alcohol and drug clinic. 

He is not asking for an honorable discharge his request is for a 
general  discharge,  which  according  to  the  uniform  code  of 
military justice, is separation with honor but to a lesser degree 
than an honorable discharge.  He claims he would not receive most 
If  a  general 
veterans  benefits  because  he  lives  in -, 
discharge  is  not  appropriate,  he  would  like  an  entry  level 
separation. 

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit F. 

3 

98-01083 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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 .   Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  to 
warrant  changing his  separation from the Air  Force to an entry 
level  separation.  After  reviewing  the  circumstances  of  this 
case, we believe that applicant's discharge should be changed to 
lIUncharacterizedii and the reason for separation changed to "Entry 
Level Separation?  We note that the applicant was Absent Without 
Leave  (AWOL) from  7 August  1969  to  15  May  1997  and  based  on 
documentation  he  had  received,  he  believed  he  was  honorably 
discharged  in  1969. 
In  view  of  the  possibility  that  the 
applicant may have misunderstood the information received and to 
remove any doubt of an injustice, we recommend his separation be 
changed  to  an entry  level  separation.  Applicant's request  to 
have  his  discharge  upgraded  to  general  (under  honorable 
conditions) was considered; however, in view of the fact that he 
only  served  90  days  on  active  duty,  and  based  on  current 
standards  he  most  likely  would  have  received  an  entry  level 
separation,  we  do  not  believe  that  his  discharge  should  be 
upgraded to general  (under honorable conditions). 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 28 May 1997, 
he received an "Uncharacterized" entry level separation under the 
provisions of A F I   36-3208, by reason of entry level performance 
and conduct, with a Separation Program Designator Code of "JGA," 
and a Reenlistment Eligibility  (RE) code of "2C." 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on 16  December 1998,  under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 

All  members voted  to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

4 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 March 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS,  dated 10 June 1998. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 24 July 1998. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 August 1998. 
Exhibit F.  Applicant's Response, dated 27 August  1998. 

CHARLENE M.  BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-01083 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

FEB  2 6  1999 

- 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
corrected to show that on 28 May 1997, he received an 
separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of entry 
- 

level performance and conduct, with a Separation Program Designator Code of “JGA,”  and a 
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C.” 

Air Force Review Boards Agency