RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04583


				COUNSEL:  NONE


				HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young, immature, and naive when his offense occurred 
(shoplifting).  He was given the option of staying in or 
leaving the military and was too young to understand the 
magnitude of his decision.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
29 Sep 87.

On 2 Jun 88, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge for commission of serious offenses.  
The reasons for the action included violation of a lawful 
general regulation by wrongfully leaving Sheppard Air Force 
Base and violation of curfew in violation of Article 92 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for which he received 
non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 15 Mar 88.  Additionally, on 
or about 2 Apr 88, he stole a zippo lighter and can of lighter 
fluid from the Main Exchange, for which he again received NJP 
on 6 Apr 88.

On 2 Jun 89 [sic], the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
action and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel or 
submit statements on his own behalf.

On 13 Jun 88, the action was found to be legally sufficient 
and, on 20 Jun 88, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 23 Jun 88, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct – other serious 
offenses and was credited with 8 months and 25 days of total 
active service.

On 26 Jun 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 
days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit C).



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 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 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-2013-04583 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair 
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Sep 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jun 14.