RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00226
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	                     	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His characterization of discharge be upgraded from general 
(under honorable conditions) to honorable.  

2.  His records be corrected to reflect his award of the Small 
Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR).  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He simply wants the blemish of his discharge characterization to 
be removed.  He is proud of his military service and only wants 
the errors, which were just a small part of his military 
service, to be changed so it is more in line with his actual 
dedication and performance.  He realizes he had to develop a 
track record of being a responsible citizen before petitioning 
the Board for a change of his discharge status.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and a copy of a Certificate of Appreciation.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 29 March 1989.  

The applicant received one Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, 
two letters of Counseling, a referral enlisted performance 
report, an unfavorable information file, and a motor vehicle 
citation between 30 December 1989 and 7 February 1992.  

On 12 February 1992, the applicant was notified of his 
commander’s intent to recommend him for a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge for a pattern of misconduct 
prejudicial to good order and discipline under the provisions of 
Air Force Regulation 39-10, paragraph 5-47b.  

The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intent, 
consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  
After considering the applicant’s statement, his commander 
recommended the applicant for discharge.

On 28 February 1992, after the Staff Judge Advocate found the 
case to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved 
the recommended discharge without probation or rehabilitation.  

The applicant was released from active duty effective 2 March 
1992 in the grade of airman first class (E-3), with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge and a narrative reason 
for separation of “Misconduct-Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to 
Good Order and Discipline.”  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request for the 
SAEMR.  DPSID states the SAEMR is awarded to all United States 
Air Force service members who after 1 January 1963, qualify as 
“expert” in small-arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle 
or issue handgun.  Qualification as “expert” in both weapons 
after 22 June 1972 shall be denoted by a bronze service star 
worn on the service ribbon.  

DPSID indicates that they were unable to locate official 
documentation verifying the applicant qualified as expert with 
either the M-16 or handgun for award of the SAEMR.  To grant 
award of the SAEMR to the applicant, without validation that he 
obtained the required eligibility criteria, would be contrary to 
the provisions by Department of Defense Manual 1348.33. 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 29 March 2013, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit D).  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 an error or an injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
concerning the applicant’s request for award of the SAEMR and 
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  

4.  In regard to the applicant’s request to upgrade his 
characterization of service from general (under honorable 
conditions) to honorable, 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 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.

________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00226 in Executive Session on 15 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                     , Member
	                     , Member



The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00226:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 13 w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Mar 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Mar 13. 




								                   
								Panel Chair

4

3