RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00674 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was given an Article 15 for being less than five minutes late for a dry fire class. The instructor would not allow him to enter the classroom and refused to listen to him. He felt punishment should have been a slap on the hand, not an Article 15. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 August 1971. On 16 January 1974, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities 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, Paragraph 2-15a, Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities, Section B, Chapter 2. The reasons for the action were that he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 20 September 1973; failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 27 September 1973; wrongfully possessed an identification card with an altered birth date on or about 1 October 1973; and without authority, absented himself from his organization from on or about 1 October 1973 to 3 October 1973. His punishment consisted of an Article 15, dated 5 October 1973, with reduction to the grade of Airman First Class. On 16 November 1973, the applicant received an Article 15, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty without authority on or about 5 November 1973 and on or about 7 November 1973. His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of Airman. On 30 Jan 1973, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for being involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in damages to a government vehicle which he was operating on or about 18 January 1973. On 20 September 1973, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to go to the firing range for a scheduled firing on or about 17 September 1973 without authority and failed to attend the Standard Traffic Safety course at the appointed time on 18 September 1973. On 17 January 1974, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and of his right to consult with legal counsel. The applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and elected to not submit statements on his own behalf. On 22 January 1974, the discharge was found to be legally sufficient. On 25 January 1974, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 31 January 1974, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days of active service, excluding lost time from 1 Oct 1973 – 3 Oct 1973. On 28 April 2014, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment with 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. 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-2014-00674 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 3 Feb 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR dated 28 Apr 14.