RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05252

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is a Veterans Administration employee and wants to set an 
example for other troubled veterans.

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because he has endeavored to overcome his 
service connected anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder and 
live a productive life.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 October 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force.

On 16 November 1983, the applicant’s commander notified him that 
he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The 
specific reason for his action was the applicant demonstrated a 
pattern of misconduct as evidence by an Article 15, three letters 
of reprimand, two letters of counseling, and numerous dishonored 
check notifications.  The commander further indicated that he did 
not consider the applicant’s positive urinalysis when rendering 
his decision.

On 16 November 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and waived his right to consult with legal 
counsel or to submit statements in his behalf.

On 13 December 1983, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient.

On 19 December 1983, the discharge authority directed the 
applicant be issued a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge certificate and determined that probation and 
rehabilitation would not be granted.

On 22 December 1983, the applicant received a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for 
separation is “Misconduct-Pattern-Conduct Prejudicial to Good 
Order and Discipline.”  He served two years, two months and four 
days of active duty.

On 28 January 2015, 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 is 
sufficient to warrant upgrading his discharge on that basis.  
Should he provide documentation pertaining to his post-service 
accomplishments and activities, we may be willing to reconsider 
his request based on clemency.  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 4 August 2015, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014-
05252 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 December 2014.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin, 28 January 2015, w/atch.