RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03216	
					COUNSEL:  NONE
	 				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He accepts full responsibility for his misconduct.  Based on 
character and post discharge service he has grown as a man and 
civil servant.  

While at technical training school at Sheppard AFB, TX, he 
started hanging out with older people and partying more than he 
should.  After six months, his retention in the Air Force was 
coming into question as his grades were barely passing and he 
had been in trouble for being late to class and reporting late 
to duty.  

In Jan 1998, he was approached with the option to leave the Air 
Force without further damage to his records.  At the time, he 
did not realize he was giving up on his future and did not 
understand the ramifications of his actions.

Since leaving the service, he has completed a bachelor’s degree 
and was employed with an investment banking firm.  He obtained 
many licensures and certifications and was promoted into 
management but was laid off when the company was sold.  

He then completed undergraduate accounting courses at the 
University of District of Columbia and was hired at the National 
Oceanic Atmospheric Association as an accounting technician and 
was later hired as a full-time accountant with the U.S. Census 
Bureau.   

It has been fifteen years since he joined the Air Force at the 
age of seventeen.  He has grown to understand the fundamental 
skills the Air Force tried to instill in him.  The lessons 
learned over 15 years ago are the reasons he is asking for his 
discharge to be upgraded.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for Review 
of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. 

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Jul 1997, the applicant entered active duty.

On 21 Jan 1998, the applicant’s commander notified him that he  
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for minor 
disciplinary infractions In Accordance With (IAW) AFI            
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific 
reasons for the discharge recommendation include an Article    
15 for failure to obey an order to remain on base and for 
failure to return and remain in his assigned dormitory from  
2400 to 0400 hours, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for consuming 
alcohol while under the age of 21, failure to follow a lawful 
order by not reporting to a Military Training Leader as 
instructed to do so, a LOR for violating a lawful general 
instruction by smoking in uniform during the duty day and  a 
record of individual counseling for not obeying a lawful order 
by smoking in his room. 

On 21 Jan 1998, the applicant acknowledged the notification of 
recommendation for discharge, waived his right to consult 
counsel and declined to submit statements in his own behalf.   

On 26 Jan 1998, the staff judge advocate found the case legally 
sufficient to support the basis for separation.  

On 2 Feb 1998, the discharge authority approved the 
recommendation for discharge.          
     
On 3 Feb 1998, he was discharged with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct.”

He served 6 months and 18 days on active duty.

On 4 Apr 2013, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the 
applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.  The DRB 
concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within 
the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was 
provided full administrative due process.  In view of the 
findings, the DRB further concluded that there was no legal or 
equitable basis for upgrade of the discharge.  

On 4 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service.  As of this date, this office has not 
received a response (Exhibit C).     

________________________________________________________________ 

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 infractions which 
led to his administrative separation and the post-service 
documentation provided by the applicant, 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.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.  

________________________________________________________________ 

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-
2013-03216 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentation was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2014, w/atch.
    



                                    
                                   Chair