RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04322 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge he was informed that his characterization of service would automatically be upgraded to Honorable after six months. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 14 Oct 87. On 29 Sep 88, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for writing four bad checks totally $49.27 which resulted in a civilian warrant being issued for his arrest. On 20 Jul 89, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to maintain sufficient funds in his bank account. On 13 Dec 89, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for dereliction of duty a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The applicant was reduced in grade to airman, ordered to forfeit $75.00 per month for two months and sentenced to correctional custody for 30 days. Both the reduction in grade and forfeiture of pay was suspended. On 28 Sep 90, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand as a result of a civilian traffic stop. During the stop it was discovered that the applicant had several warrants outstanding for speeding, failure to appear and no proof of insurance. On 10 Oct 90, the applicant was notified by his commander that he intended to recommend him for discharge for “Misconduct -- Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civilian Authorities” in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Section H, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-47a. The applicant’s commander recommended his service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). 11 Oct 90, the applicant waived his right to legal counsel and is right to submit a statement on his behalf. On 12 Oct 90, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient. The discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 15 Oct 90, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 3 years and 2 days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Dec 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-2014-04322 in Executive Session on 25 Aug 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04322 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Dec 14.