RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05793
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following corrections be made to his DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty:

    1.  Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) be 
changed to reflect “SRA” (Senior Airman, E-4) rather than Airman 
(E-2).

    2.  Block 11 (Primary Specialty) be changed to reflect 
2A551G rather than 2A531G.

    3.  Block 15a (Member Contributed to Post-Vietnam Era 
Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program) be changed to reflect 
“Yes.”

    4.  Block 24 (Character of Service) be changed to honorable.

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged for a minor infraction.  He believes that he 
should have the status he earned and his record restored. 

He is married and has two children and is a small business 
owner.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Nov 93, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular 
Air Force.

On 4 Oct 96, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that she was recommending his discharge from the Air 
Force for Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil 
Authorities.  For a full list of the offenses, please see the 
commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B.

On 4 Oct 96, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge 
notification, and after consulting with legal counsel, waived 
his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support separation. The discharge authority 
approved the separation and directed a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  

On 16 Oct 96, the applicant was discharged under the provisions 
of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a 
Pattern of Misconduct, and received a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  He served on active duty for a period of 
2 years, 11 months, and 5 days.

On 14 Jan 13, AFPC/DPSIT sent the applicant a letter clarifying 
the information noted in Block 15a of his DD Form 214, and why 
“No” was marked.  DPSIT explained that Block 15a pertains to 
individuals entering active duty under the Veterans’ Education 
Assistance Program (VEAP); this option was available for 
individuals who entered the service between 1 Jan 77 and before 
1 Jul 85.  The applicant’s date of entry into the Air Force was 
12 Nov 93; and his records reflect that he elected to 
participate in the MGIB.  Therefore, this block does not require 
correction.

On 25 Jan 13, AFPC/DPSOE sent the applicant a letter informing 
him that his rank and pay grade reflected on his DD Form 214 are 
correct and is the rank and pay grade he held at the time of his 
discharge on 16 Oct 96.  His record reflects that he received an 
Article 15 on 18 Sep 96 for wrongfully and unlawfully uttering a 
check for which he had insufficient funds and that his 
punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman with a 
new date of rank of 15 Jul 96.  Therefore, no correction is 
required to Block 4a and 4b of his DD Form 214.

On 7 Aug 13, a request for information pertaining to his post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response 
within 30 days (Exhibit F).  

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
upgrade his discharge.  DPSOR states that although the applicant 
asserts that he was discharged for a minor infraction; the 
applicant’s discharge record reveals a pattern of misconduct and 
repeated incidents of disobeying orders from his chain of 
command which formed the basis for his discharge.  The 
applicant’s discharge to include his character of service was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to add 
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2A551G to his DD Form 214, since 
there is no evidence to support that he was ever awarded this 
AFSC.  

DPSIC further states that the applicant’s military record has 
several documents that contain AFSC information; however, based 
on his administrative demotion from senior airman to airman 
first class, his control and primary AFSCs must be at the 3-
skill level, not 5-skill level.

The complete DPSIC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 Jun 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
E).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________


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 agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Further, 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, the applicant provides no evidence to compel us to 
recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  Regarding 
his other requests, we note the applicant has been advised by 
letters) as to why these requests could not be approved and we 
agree with the explanations provided.  Therefore, in view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis 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 Docket Number    
BC-2012-05793 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 12, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Mar 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIC, dated 18 Jun 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 13.




				Panel Chair