RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03392 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was informed at the time of his discharge hearing that there was no substantial evidence of any wrong doing and was pending action from civilian authorities. His lawyer at the time told him he needed to present his discharge to the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) after five years from his discharge and it would be upgraded. He would like to receive medical benefits for injuries he sustained on the flight line. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 May 94. On 19 Mar 96, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his discharge for Minor Disciplinary Infractions and Commission of a Serious Offense. The reasons for these actions are as follows: On 14 Feb 96, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to obey a lawful general regulation to comply with the dress and personal appearance standards. On 16 Feb 96, the applicant received a LOR for wrongfully obtaining a meal, of some value, from the United States Air Force through false pretenses by signing on the Subsistence-in-Kind roster when he knew he was receiving Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) and was not entitled to Subsistence-in-Kind. On 3 Jan 96, as evidenced by a Police Department Offense Report, assaulted two females under the age of 16 by pointing a B.B. pistol at them and orally communicated to both females certain indecent language. On 3 Jan 96, the applicant received a LOR for making a false official statement as to his whereabouts. On 3 Jan 96, the applicant received a LOR for making a false official statement that he had a medical appointment when he did not. On 31 Jan 96, as evidenced by a Police Department Offense Report, the applicant engaged in disorderly conduct in that he asked an 11 year old girl who was a stranger to him, if she wanted to go home with him and then offered to pay her $200.00 to go home with him. On 5 Dec 95, the applicant received a LOR for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 6 Nov 95, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to wear his uniform to his appointment to the orderly room as he was directed to do. On 18 Apr 86, the commander revised his original notification letter of discharge by adding three LOR’s for failure to maintain body fat standards, a LOC for being late on a MasterCard payment and an LOC for failure to progress in his skills and competence in his military department. These were appended to the Commander’s Recommendation to the Wing Commander. They are not referenced as a basis for the discharge processing or service characterization. However, they are part of his military record and may be considered on the issue of whether discharge is appropriate. On 8 Aug 96, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 27 days of active service. On 24 Aug 14, 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-2014-03392 in Executive Session on 14 May 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03392 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 14.