RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05633 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was 17 years old when he joined the military and began drinking heavily. His discharge was the result of his drinking. He has evaluated his life and now realizes he was an alcoholic. He needs his discharge upgraded in order to secure employment with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA). In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of DD Form 214CG, Report of Separation from Active Duty and DD Form 214, Certificate of Release from Active. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Oct 80, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 10 Sep 82, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for frequent involvements of a discreditable nature under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Chapter 2, section B, paragraph 2-15a. The specific reasons for his action was based on the applicant’s 10 recorded instances of minor misconduct, 3 of which were punishable by Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), records of counseling and a Letter of Reprimand for financial indebtedness. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge. After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted an undated letter in his own behalf. On 8 Oct 82, the Combat Support Group commander directed that an Evaluation Officer be appointed to review the applicant’s case file, unit personnel records, and all other related papers. The Evaluation Officer conducted a personal interview and advised the applicant of the nature of the action and counseled him regarding it; advised him of his right to submit a rebuttal and make written statements in his own behalf. The Evaluation Officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and be considered for probation and rehabilitation. On 2 Nov 82, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the case legally sufficient to support the Evaluation Officer’s recommendation for separation with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. However, he did not agree with the recommendation for probation and rehabilitation. The SJA noted the applicant’s deficiencies in conduct were numerous and long-standing as to establish a deep seated pattern of conduct. Also, it was noted that since he was unable to break his pattern in the past, there was no reasonable expectation that he would break it in the future. On 3 Nov 82, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. On 22 Nov 82, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He served 2 years, 1 month and 22 days of total active service. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicated that on the basis of the information provided, they were able to locate an arrest record. 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, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service information we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted on that basis. In view of the above and 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-2013-05633 in Executive Session on 18 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 3 Dec 13. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.