RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03756 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was wrongfully discharged for allegations of drug use which were proven to be negative by a drug test. He was harassed during his time in service and given a false diagnosis of diabetes and mental health conditions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Sep 82. On 14 Apr 83, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend a general discharge for a pattern of misconduct – pattern of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The basis for the action was as follows: a. On 4 Jan 83, the applicant willfully disobeyed a lawful order. For this offense he was ordered to forfeit $100 pay, 15 days correctional custody, and 15 days extra duty. On 18 Jan 83, the squadron commander remitted part of the punishment relating to the 15 days correctional custody. b. On or about 1 Apr 83, the applicant’s dependent wife notified city police that she had been allegedly assaulted by the applicant. For this offense, he was reprimanded. c. On 4 Apr 83, the applicant assaulted another airman by striking him in the chest with his vehicle keys. For this offense, he was reduced from the grade of Airman (E-2) to the grade of Airman Basic (E-1), ordered to forfeit $286 pay for two months (forfeiture, suspended until 30 Sep 83). On 14 Apr 83, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, consulted with legal counsel and waived his right to submit statements on his own behalf. On 15 Apr 83, the action was found to be legally sufficient, subsequently the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation. On 18 Apr 83, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 7 months and 17 days of active service. On 4 Aug 83, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to honorable. On 1 Aug 84, the AFDRB denied his request, concluding that discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that he was provided full administrative due process. On 19 Sep 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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-2014-03756 in Executive Session on 18 Jun 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 14.