RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03944

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15, of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) imposed on 12 Aug 80, be 
set aside and removed from his records.

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge was based on 
one incident and should have no bearing on his change to an 
honorable discharge.  

The applicant states “parties and alcohol were continual 
occurrences in base dorms so anything or incident that happened 
was not my fault.”  He also states, “The Article 15 I received 
pertaining to returning one day late from leave was not my fault 
as the Air Force mistakenly wrote down the wrong leave days.” 

The applicant provides no rationale as to why his untimely 
application should be considered.

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

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 Dec 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 1 Dec 80, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent 
to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability, 
under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, 
Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of 
the Service and Procedures for Rehabilitation Program.  The 
specific reasons for the discharge action included disorderly in 
quarters, being absent from his appointed place of duty, 
possession of marijuana, disrespect towards a noncommissioned 
officer and damage to government property, all in violation of 
various articles of the UCMJ; for which he received NJP under 
Article 15, reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.  
Before recommending discharge, the commander noted the applicant 
had been counseled numerous times, issued letters of reprimand, 
given Article 15s and nonrecommended for promotion; however all 
attempts at rehabilitation were met with negative results.  The 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge.  
After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant elected not to 
submit a statement in his own behalf.   

On 11 Dec 80, an evaluation officer reviewed the case file and 
determined the applicant desired to be discharged and to have the 
recommended general (under honorable conditions) discharge 
upgraded to honorable.  However, based upon his findings, the 
evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged from 
the Air Force and be furnished a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge without the offer of probation or 
rehabilitation. 

On 31 Dec 80, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be 
legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer of 
probation or rehabilitation.

On 7 Jan 81, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge.  On 12 Jan 81, the applicant was discharged for 
Misconduct – Frequent Involvement with Civil/Military Authorities 
with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) 
in the grade of airman basic.  He served 2 years and 28 days of 
total active service.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  The applicant seeks relief in the 
form of a different basis for discharge, but his actions 
constituted misconduct and a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge is an appropriate characterization.

The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board 
should overturn the commander’s original NJP decisions on the 
basis of injustice or insufficient evidence.  It is the 
applicant’s burden to provide the Board with evidence to support 
his claims.  The applicant provides no evidence to rebut any of 
the Article 15 actions from 1979-1980 other than his own statement 
that “parties and alcohol were continual occurrences in base dorms 
so anything or incident that happened was not my fault.”  He also 
states, “The Article 15 I received pertaining to returning one day 
late from leave was not my fault as the Air Force mistakenly wrote 
down the wrong leave days.”  

The applicant had the opportunity to present evidence to his 
commander regarding his Article 15 for being disorderly in 
quarters, but he chose not to submit any response.  Again, he 
chose not to submit a response when he received an Article 15 for 
being absent without leave and also when he received an Article 
15 for possession of marijuana.  The commander issuing the Article 
15 would have been in the best position to determine if there was 
mitigating evidence, but the applicant, who was given the 
opportunity to speak with defense counsel, waived his right to 
submit information.  The commander’s ultimate decision on the NJP 
actions were reviewed on multiple levels for legal sufficiency and 
it was determined that the commander’s decisions were rooted in 
firm evidence and the punishment decisions was well within the 
limits of the commander’s authority and direction.  

The complete 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 23 Dec 14, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, this office has not received a 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 injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we found 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 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 and the infractions 
which led to his administrative separation we are not persuaded 
that an upgrade is warranted.  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 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-2014-03944 in Executive Session on 12 May 15, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Nov 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 14.