RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05570 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He struggled with depression after his grandmother passed away and prior to his weight and financial problems. He was a top performing airman and was selected for early promotion. The failure to untimely file should be waived in the interest of justice since he would like to have his discharge upgraded to continue utilizing the GI Bill under the Post-9/11 rules. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 1997. On 2 January 2002, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his administrative discharge for minor disciplinary infractions and exceeding body fat standards, weight management program. The specific reasons for the action are contained later in these proceedings in the summary of the evaluation prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). On 3 January 2002, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements or rebuttal. On 17 January 2002, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, and was credited with 4 years, 7 months, and 27 days of active service. On 7 April 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to Honorable. The AFDRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. On 15 October 2014, 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 E). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in the processing of the discharge. The applicant’s service record shows that from 21 November 2000 to 19 January 2001 he received three Letters of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to clear his base housing unit, failing to report to his place of duty at appointed time, and failing to pay Military Star credit card debt. For the period beginning 12 April 2001 through 29 October 2001, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to pay Military Star credit card and another LOR on 1 October 2001, for failing to make payments on his credit card. The applicant received an Article 15 on 20 December 2001, for failing to notify his First Sergeant that he received a traffic ticket on a military installation and again for failing to pay a debt to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. Throughout this same time period, on or about 12 July 2001 to 19 November 2001, the applicant received one LOC and two LORs for failing to make satisfactory progress while in the Weight Management Program. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 29 August 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2013-05570 in Executive Session on 21 November 2014 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 Jan 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 14. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Oct 14, w/atch.