RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00063 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was never in trouble while in the Air Force, but was investigated for steroids and found innocent of all charges. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 Sep 01, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 12 Nov 03, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to finish assigned tasks and lying about having completed them. On 21 Nov 03, he received an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using a government computer to store and view pornographic websites. His punishment was suspended reduction in rank to airman (Amn)/E-2, forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months and reprimand. On 15 Dec 03, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report to duty at the prescribed time. On 29 Jan 04, the suspension for reduction in rank was vacated. He was reduced in rank to Amn for being derelict in the performance of his duties for failing to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21 years, wrongfully appropriating a driver’s license of a fellow airman and being drunk and disorderly. On 20 Feb 04, he received an Article 15, UCMJ for being derelict in performing his duties. He willfully failed to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21, wrongfully appropriating a driver’s license of a fellow airman and being drunk and disorderly. He was reduced in rank to airman basic. On 10 Mar 04, his commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged for a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.50.2. On 22 Mar 04, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient. On 2 Apr 04, the applicant received a general, under honorable conditions, discharge. He was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 29 days of active service. On 21 Mar 06, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge. On 3 Feb 15, 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 characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post- service information, we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted. Should the applicant provide additional documentation as noted in the Clemency Information Bulletin, we may be willing to reconsider his request. 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-2015-00063 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 15.