RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02726
			        COUNSEL:  NONE
	  		        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His narrative reason for separation be changed to 
“Convenience of the Government.”  

3.  His Reentry (RE) code be changed to “1.” 

4.  His rank and pay grade at time of discharge be changed to 
the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt).  

_______________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions did not warrant the discharge he received.  Other 
airmen were involved in his situation and were not discharged.

The discharge was retaliation for filing a Congressional 
complaint against his commander.

Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to 
continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a misconduct 
discharge while others who were accused of the same offense were 
able to retire.

Under current standards, he would not have received the type of 
discharge he received.

His overall average conduct and efficiency ratings were marked 
as outstanding.  

In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR), 
letters of support, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty; and other various documents 
associated with his requests.

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 Mar 1992, the applicant entered active duty. 

On 24 Apr 1996, he was convicted by Special Court-Martial (SPCM) 
for conspiracy.  Punishment consisted of a reprimand, reduction 
to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA) and confinement for 90 days. 

In an undated letter, the applicant’s commander notified him 
that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for 
commission of a serious offense In Accordance With (IAW) Air 
Force Instruction (AFI)  36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  
The specific reason for the recommendation was his court-martial 
conviction for wrongful appropriation of promotion test 
materials.   

On 5 Sep 1996, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
notification, his right to consult legal counsel and submit 
statements in his own behalf. 

On 7 Feb 1997, the applicant was notified that an administrative 
discharge board would be convened to determine whether he should 
be separated.  

The commander’s notification letter was amended to include that 
the applicant took possession of a Specialty Knowledge Test 
(SKT) booklet in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; a violation 
which authorizes a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 
two years. 

On 18 Feb 1997, the applicant acknowledged the addendum to the 
commander’s notification for recommendation of discharge.  

On 19 Feb 1997, an administrative discharge board found the 
applicant did, on or about 15 Jan and 15 Feb 1995 conspire to 
commit wrongful appropriation of a controlled Air Force enlisted 
promotion test item; an offense which a punitive discharge would 
be authorized for a closely related offense under the Manual for 
Courts-Martial (MCM).  The applicant was recommended for a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge and probation and 
rehabilitation with a conditional suspension of the discharge.  

On 13 Mar 1997, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) determined the 
administrative discharge board proceedings were legally 
sufficient.  The SJA recommended the administrative discharge 
board’s recommendation for discharge with a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge be adopted but recommended the 
applicant be denied probation and rehabilitation.  The serious 
nature of the applicant’s misconduct was conscious and 
deliberate and resulted in the loss of his security clearance 
and Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  Favorable consideration 
for probation and rehabilitation is premised on the potential 
for rehabilitation and for further useful military service and 
the applicant had limited potential for either.  

On 17 Mar 1997, the discharge authority approved the discharge 
without probation and rehabilitation.   

On 2 Apr 1997, he was discharged with service characterized as a 
general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct.”

He served 14 years, 10 months and 17 days on active duty.  
 
On 4 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service.  He states his discharge was 
inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in over 
15 years of service with no other adverse actions.  The 
discharge was also improper because his new commander used a 
misdemeanor SPCM charge which occurred a year prior as the major 
reason for the administrative discharge proceedings.  The SPCM 
did not recommend discharge but instead recommended he be 
offered probation and rehabilitation with a conditional 
suspension of the discharge.  

On 23 Mar 1995, he tested for promotion to the grade of MSgt.  
By this time, the base testing facility had already changed out 
the entire testing materials to ensure the integrity of the 
test.  He was notified in Jun 1995 that he had been selected for 
promotion to the grade of MSgt.  

The SPCM found him not guilty of Article 134, bribery and graft.  
However, he was found guilty of Article 81, conspiracy to 
wrongfully acquire test materials.  He vehemently denies the 
accusations to this day.  He has never received any other type 
of punishment.  

In Sep 1996, he appealed the SPCM reduction to the grade of SrA 
to his Congressman.  As a result, his new commander directed his 
supervisor to write a referral EPR and start administrative 
discharge proceedings.  He consulted a military attorney who 
advised him to request an administrative discharge board.  

His post military activities include completion of a bachelor’s 
and master’s degree.  He is a co-business owner and vice-
president of two small businesses and was employed by Kraft 
Foods.  

?
The applicant provides a Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) 
background check and Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation 
reports dated 11 Mar 2014 which show no convictions on file. 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

________________________________________________________________ 

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 during the discharge process.  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 characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service, the seriousness of 
the offense which led to his administrative separation and the 
post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade 
on this basis is warranted.  Therefore, in view of the above and 
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 
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-
2013-02726 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Chair
       , Member
       , Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 2013, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2014, w/atch.  
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Mar 2014.    
      



 								 
     					 Chair