RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03340 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It has been 24 years since his discharge. At the time of his discharge, he was working through issues with his weight and still has challenges with his weight. His service was honorable and he desires to have that reflected to afford him the opportunity to receive benefits and various discounts as a civilian for his service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Apr 87. On 13 Jan 89, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge for unsatisfactory performance, specifically exceeding weight standards, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reasons for the action included failure to progress in the weight management program (WMP), for which he received a demotion to the grade of airman (E-2), letters of reprimand, and an unfavorable information file (UIF) with a control roster. On 23 Jan 89, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and submitted statements on his behalf requesting further explanation for the discharge (other than the fact the applicant had intentionally failed to progress in the WMP). Additionally, the applicant’s counsel requested that his entire record be examined before making a decision to separate the applicant. On 26 Jan 89, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 2 Feb 89, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for unsatisfactory performance and was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of total active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days. In response, he describes his experiences subsequent to his discharge. He has been a father and husband for twenty years and completed educational programs with Cornell University and job related training for management. Additionally, he has started his own business, became a Director of Operations at his local church, and is currently a site manager at a local storage facility. In support of his response, he provides a character reference letter from his pastor and copies of fourteen supporting documents (Exhibit D). 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 find 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 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 on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time. In this respect, we note that Congress' intent in setting up the Veterans Benefits Program was to express thanks for Veterans' personal sacrifice, separations from family, facing hostile enemy action, and suffering financial hardship. It would be unfair to all those who served honorably to extend those Veterans benefits to someone who committed acts of misconduct while on active duty. For these reasons, this Board very carefully weighs requests to upgrade the character of a discharge and, in doing so, carefully considers whether the impact of an applicant's contributions to his or her community since leaving the service are substantial enough for us to conclude they overcome the misconduct which precipitated the discharge and whether or not an upgrade of the discharge would create a larger injustice to those who served under honorable conditions and earned the characterization of service the applicant seeks. A key component of this determination is whether or not an applicant has a criminal record. While the applicant has provided a number of supporting statements attesting to the positive impact of his efforts in the community, without an arrest record from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), we cannot conclusively determine if his activities since leaving the service outweigh the misconduct which precipitated his discharge. Therefore, in view of the above, we are unable to recommend granting relief at this time. However, should the applicant provide an FBI report, we would be willing to reconsider his request based on new evidence. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2013-03340 in Executive Session on 31 Jul 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03340 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Mar 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated. 1 2