RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04422 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He entered the Air Force at 17 years of age for a guaranteed computer programming job, only to find out it would not happen until his second enlistment. After speaking to base legal, he did what was necessary to be discharged. He has lived honorably since that time, working as a registered nurse. The board should find it in the interest of justice to grant his untimely application because though he worked in the manufacturing industry till his plant shut down, he went back to school and received an Associate’s Degree in nursing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Jun 78 the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 6 Dec 78, his promotion was withheld due to his disregard for directions, failure to complete on-the-job training, and failure to wear his uniform. On 7 Dec 78, he received an Article 15 for failing to go to his assigned place of duty and willful disobedience of a lawful order. He acknowledged acceptance on 11 Dec 78 indicating his desire for an oral presentation in his defense. On 18 Dec 78, his commander ordered him to forfeit $200.00 and to perform extra duty for 45 consecutive days. On 27 Dec 78, he received an Article 15 for wrongfully possessing and using marijuana on or about 15 Dec 78. He acknowledged acceptance on 2 Jan 79 indicating his desire for an oral presentation in his defense and attached a written statement. On 4 Jan 79, his commander ordered him to forfeit $100.00 and restricted him to the base for 30 consecutive days. On 11 Jan 79, his supervisor notified the applicant he was referring his Airman Performance Report (APR). He acknowledged the same day indicating he was not contesting the APR. On 16 Jan 79, he was notified of his commander’s intent to furnish him with a general discharge. He acknowledged receipt on 19 Jan 79. On 14 Feb 79, the applicant submitted a written statement on his behalf indicating the reasons for his behavior leading to the charges in his file. On 26 Feb 79, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient concluding regardless of the applicant’s specific motivation, he clearly established the defective nature of his attitude by refusing to do his job and participate in training. On 13 Mar 79, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation as Involuntary Discharge – Unsuitability, apathy, defective attitude or inability to expand effort constructively under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, chapter 2, section A, paragraph 2-4c. He was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 6 days of active service. On 6 Nov 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). In response, the applicant provided a copy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check and copies of two character references. 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, including his rebuttal response, 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, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04422 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Mar 15.