RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00699
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Time In Service (TIS) be extended to two years.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not informed that he could have appealed his discharge.  
The basis of his appeal is that the paperwork he submitted to 
the Judge Advocate General (JAG) was not forwarded to the 
discharge panel.

The applicant provides no documents in support of his request.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Nov 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 14 Sep 1983, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reason for 
this action was his failure to meet minimum standards of duty 
performance and military bearing.

On 14 Sep 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and that his failure to consult with 
counsel or to submit statements will constitute a waiver of his 
right to do so.

On 14 Sep 1983, the discharge authority directed the applicant 
be discharged without probation and rehabilitation.

On 3 Oct 1983, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the 
discharge legally sufficient.



On 12 Oct 1983, he was honorably discharged under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10.  His narrative reason for separation was 
“Unsatisfactory Performance.”  He served 1 year, 10 months and 
14 days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that the applicant's 
discharge was based on his unsatisfactory performance and his 
refusal to regain and maintain minimum standards of duty 
performance and military bearing.  The discharge record reveals 
the applicant was counseled and afforded an opportunity to 
improve his performance, but was met with negative results.  
Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the characterization of 
service was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit 
any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred 
in the discharge processing. His TIS should not be extended to 
two years.

The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In an eight page statement, the applicant asserts that at the 
time of his discharge, he was informed that he could use the 
resources of the Area Defense Counsel (ADC).  The ADC told him 
that he could submit a statement that would be included with his 
discharge package.  The ADC told him that they would type out 
his statement as long as it was submitted by a certain date.  He 
believes the ADC received his statement before the deadline, but 
he is not certain.  A few weeks later, he was informed that he 
was being discharged and he began his out-processing.  He went 
back to the ADC, so that he could get a copy of his statement.  
However, the ADC informed him that his statement was not 
included in the discharge package because it was too long.  He 
cannot determine whether his statement would have had any 
bearing on his discharge or retention in the service.  However, 
it was his right to include a statement in his discharge 
package.  He may have achieved two years TIS had there been a 
further review of his discharge.  His rebuttal also addresses 
the reasons for his discharge.  His rights, in relation to his 
discharge were violated and it has not been until recently that 
he became aware that he could correct this oversight.



His complete response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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.  While the applicant 
argues that his rights were violated, 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.  Moreover, the applicant acknowledged 
his rights in the Receipt of Notice of Proposed Discharge letter 
dated 14 Sep 1983.  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.  Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 
upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application.

________________________________________________________________

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 this application 
in Executive Session on 15 Oct 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-00699:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 5 Feb 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 2 Apr 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

2


2