RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02277

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It has been 15 years since he was on active duty.  

On 19 Oct 12, he received a letter from Headquarters Air Force 
Office of Special Investigations (HQ AFOSI) indicating they 
expunged the Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, court sentence 
charge indexed in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).  
They admitted in their letter this was not a qualifying offense 
and it should not have been entered.  They also contend that 
indexing did not mean he was guilty or innocent of any charges, 
but rather investigated.  

He has received surmounting hardship in the past decade as a 
result of this error and believes he received excessive 
punishment upon listing his Article 15 into the NCIC.  When in 
fact, he was not prosecuted, tried or convicted of any crime in 
a court of law.

In support of his request, the applicant provided at copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, a copy of an AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for 
Separation, a copy of a Memorandum from HQ AFOSI, dated 19 Oct 
12 and a personal letter, dated 3 Jun 14.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 
97.



On 17 Apr 98, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
dereliction of duty as he failed to have his dormitory room 
ready for the quarterly wing inspection.

On 28 Jul 98, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for 
dereliction of duty as he failed to prepare himself for his 
second Career Development Course (CDC) examination.

On 7 Apr 99, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for adultery, a violation of Article 134 of the 
Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He was reduced in 
grade to airman basic (E-1) and restricted to the limits of 
base.

On 21 Apr 99, the applicant was notified by his commander he was 
being recommended for discharge for a pattern of misconduct in 
accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.50.2., conduct prejudicial to 
good order and discipline.  The commander recommended a General 
(Under Honorable Conditions) service characterization.  On the 
same date, the applicant waived his option to consult counsel 
and the right to submit statements on his behalf.   

On 3 May 99, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the proposed 
discharge package and found it legally sufficient.  The 
discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a 
characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).  

The applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable 
Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 11 months, 
and 18 days of active service.   

The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects a narrative reason for 
separation as misconduct. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  

The applicant received a letter from the Headquarters of the Air 
Force Office of Special Investigation (HQ AFOSI) expunging the 
court sentence charge of an Article 15 hearing from his National 
Crime Information Center (NCIC) record. He contends that with 
this Article 15 removal from his NCIC record, his discharge 
should also be upgraded.  We recommend that the Board not grant 
the requested relief.

The applicant's squadron commander offered nonjudicial 
punishment for committing adultery, a violation of Article 
134, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  After consulting with 
a lawyer, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment and 
submitted a written presentation.  After considering the 
evidence and the applicant's submission, the squadron 
commander found that the applicant committed the alleged 
misconduct.  

Although HQ AFOSI acknowledged adultery is not a qualifying 
offense and the fact the information should not have been 
entered into NCIC, this is unrelated to the question of 
whether there was any error or injustice with the Article 15 
or the administrative discharge.  

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case and although HQ AFOSI acknowledged his 
previously accepted Article 15 was not a qualifying 
offense and the fact the information should not have been 
entered into the National Crime Information Center, this is 
unrelated to the question of whether there was any error or 
injustice 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, 
in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-
service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the 
applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are 
sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he 
was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought. 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-02277 in Executive Session on 28 Apr 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02277 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 14.