RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03347 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge should have been upgraded because in the 1970’s the President and the government upgraded all military status (character of service), except dishonorable. He did not request his upgrade at that time because he thought his was good enough. He needs his discharge upgraded so that he can apply for insurance (auto, health, and life) through United States Automobile Association (USAA). He states in order to get insurance through USAA his discharge characterization of service has to be honorable. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Jun 64, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. On 30 Nov 65, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for a pattern of misconduct. For a full list of the offenses, please see the commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B. After consulting with an evaluation officer, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a general discharge. On 13 Dec 65, the discharge authority approved the general discharge. On 16 Dec 65, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He was credited with one year, six months and one day of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ 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 applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the numerous infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Should the applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post-service activities, we would be willing to reconsider his request. 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-2012-03347 in Executive Session on 18 Apr 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 12. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Panel Chair