RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01787 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The record as stated is true and the facts correct. The misconduct and attitude he displayed causing his discharge were that of a young and naïve individual and he regrets those events to this day. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of his separation order and DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 28 Jul 87 separation, and a biographical sketch of his life’s accomplishments. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to the events under review, the applicant had 4 years, 5 months, and 22 days of active duty service. He reenlisted on 26 Feb 86. The squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant, on 9 Jul 87, for a pattern of misconduct. The specific reasons for the proposed action were: a. He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for running a red light on 18 Jan 87, noting that his driver’s license was suspended by the State of Florida on four different occasions. b. The support group commander directed him not to operate a vehicle on base for a period of one year, because he drove his car on base while his license was suspended. c. The support group commander directed him not to operate a vehicle on base for a period of two years, because he drove his car on base while his license was suspended. d. He received an LOR for resisting apprehension, suspicion of driving under the influence, and driving with a suspended license. e. He received an Article 15 for resisting apprehension on or about 14 Mar 87. f. He received an LOR for failure to go to his place of duty. g. The support group commander revoked his driving privileges on base until 4 Mar 93. h. He tested positive on 17 Apr 87 for cocaine use. On that same date, after consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, he waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 24 Jul 87, the discharge authority approved the under honorable conditions, general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant was discharged on 28 Jul 87 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of misconduct – pattern of discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He was credited with one year, five months, and nine days of active duty service during this period. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Should the applicant provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board may be inclined to reconsider this case based on the new evidence. We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record. 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 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-2010-01787 in Executive Session on 6 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Vice Chair