RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00269 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He went Absent Without Leave (AWOL) because he was being treated like dirt because his co-worker and shop chief thought he was having an affair with a co-worker’s spouse. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 27 December 1979. On 17 January 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for A Pattern of Misconduct, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Paragraph, 5-47b. The reasons for the action were as follows: On 10 December 1985, he received an Article 15 failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty without authority. On 17 May 1985, he was convicted by a special court martial for being AWOL from 12 April 1985 to 1 May 1985. On 19 March 1985, he received a Letter of Counseling for failure to support his dependents. The letter of notification indicated the applicant had a right to consult with legal counsel and that he had a right to appear before an administrative discharge board. If he waived his right to an administrative discharge board, he still had the right to submit statements on his behalf. On 4 February 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and of his right to consult with legal counsel. He subsequently submitted a request for a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing, provided he receive no less than a general discharge. On 13 February 1986, the discharge authority rejected his request of a conditional waiver. On a letter dated 21 February 1986, applicant consulted with military counsel and exercised his rights to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 12 March 1986, the ADB convened and determined the applicant be discharged from the service for misconduct with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 31 March 1986, the action was found legally sufficient and, on 2 April 1986, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation of the ADB and directed the applicant’s discharge. On 17 April 1986, the applicant was furnished an UOTHC discharge, and was credited with 6 years, 3 months, and 21 days of active service, excluding lost time from 4 November 1985 to 5 November 1985, from 1 May 1985 to 8 August 1985, and 12 April 1985 to 30 April 1985. On 28 April 2014, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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. 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-2014-00269 in Executive Session on 2 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.