RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03602 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The disciplinary infractions for which he received a General discharge were far too minor for such a negative characterization of service and do not accurately portray his exemplary service as an Intelligence Analyst. During his career he received numerous accolades to include the award of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM). His General discharge was based on a single Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for misconduct and a reduction in rank for failing a weigh-in under the Weight Management Program. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 30 Jul 82. On 2 Dec 85, the applicant was administratively released from the NCO Preparatory Course for failing to meet weight standards. On 4 Sep 86, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On 20 Nov 86, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On 12 May 87, the applicant received a LOR for deliberately changing computer programs which resulted in confusion, mistrust and a loss of mission effectiveness. On 5 Aug 87, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On 14 Aug 87, the applicant’s commander vacated his Noncommissioned Officer status based on his unsatisfactory progress in the Weight Management Program for four cumulative months to include the last three consecutive months. On 24 Aug 97, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On 25 Jan 88, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend him for discharge based on minor disciplinary infractions in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.46. On 28 Jan 88, the applicant waived his rights to consult counsel and submitted a statement on his behalf for consideration. On 19 Feb 88, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. On 26 Feb 88, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation to discharge the applicant with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service without probation and rehabilitation. On 1 Mar 88, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with five years, seven months, and two days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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-2014-03602 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03602 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Clemency Information Bulletin.