RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05579 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was never arrested, held in custody, or confronted by military or civilian law enforcement. His correctional situations were with his commanding officer and not of a serious nature to justify the discharge he received. The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 June 1971. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12. The specific reasons are as follows: a. The applicant received a written reprimand for failure to repair. b. The applicant received three Article 15s for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 to 30 August 1971, 14 to 25 January 1972 and 15 May 1972 to 9 June 1972. The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel he elected to waive his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged. The applicant was discharged on 1 August 1972 with a UOTHC discharge. He served 1 year and 13 days on active duty. On 13 July 2014, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 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, based on the evidence before us, we find no basis to grant clemency at this time. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 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 an 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-2013-05579 in Executive Session on 14 August 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 November 2013. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 13 July 2014.