RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02991 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. His date of birth on his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, by corrected to reflect “x xxx xx”. (Administratively corrected via DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, dated 7 Dec 73.) APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He did not do anything while serving that would be considered misconduct; therefore, he should not have received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. His birthday is listed wrong on his DD Form 214. In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his birth certificate and current identification card which lists his correct birth date. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Feb 71. On 16 Dec 71, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for failing to obey a lawful order, a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was reduced in grade to airman basic, ordered to forfeit $110 dollars a month for two months, and ordered into Correctional Custody for a period of 30 days. On 21 Dec 71, at 2213 hours, the applicant’s Duty Status was changed from Present for Duty to Absent Without Leave (AWOL). It was noted on AF Form 1098, Personnel Action Request, the applicant was discovered missing from Correctional Custody. On 19 Jan 72, at 2213 hours, the applicant’s Duty Status was changed from AWOL to Desertion. It was noted on AF Form 1098, the applicant has been AWOL since 21 Dec 71. On 20 Jan 72, at 0800 hours, the applicant’s Duty Status was changed from Desertion to Present for Duty. It is noted on AF Form 1098, the applicant voluntarily reported back to base. On 21 Jan 72, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court- Martial and sentenced to forfeit $75.00 per month for five months and to be confined at lard labor for five months. On 6 Sep 72, the applicant was notified by his commander he intended to discharge him based on Unsuitability in accordance with AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Chapter 2, Section A, paragraph 2-4c. The commander recommended the applicant be furnished a General discharge. On 25 Sep 72, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. On 2 Oct 72, the discharge authority approved the applicant for a General discharge. On 6 Oct 72, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 11 months and 1 day of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received. 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, we do not consider clemency to be appropriate. 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-2014-02991 in Executive Session on 2 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02991 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Clemency Information Bulletin.