RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00068 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The date of birth reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected. (Administratively corrected) 2. His under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 3. His narrative reason for separation of JKA which denotes “Misconduct-Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature” be changed to JDR which denotes “Involuntary discharge, first term airman, strength reduction.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unfairly associated with other airmen who were causing trouble. The base commander wanted all trouble makers out of the Air Force and because he received an Article 15 for not getting a haircut, he was discharged. He was the best jet engine mechanic assigned to his unit and was selected to work on the third shift because he completed all repairs without supervision. He enjoyed the work and education he received from the Air Force and is now a successful business owner. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 June 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 29 May 1981, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Unfitness, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program. The specific reason for this action was the applicant established a pattern of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with both military and civilian authorities as evidenced by eight letters of counseling, two letters of reprimand, one Article 15, a civil court conviction and a non-recommendation for promotion, between 28 February 1980 and 24 April 1981. On 1 June 1981, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and stated he should be given an honorable discharge. On 23 Jun 1981, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. In an undated letter, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an under honorable conditions discharge. On 25 June 1981, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a under honorable conditions discharge. His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct-Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature.” He served on active duty for a total of 2 years and 22 days and had 2 days of lost time during this period. On 4 February 2015, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). The applicant provides an FBI report that reflects no post service arrest or derogatory information since his discharge in 1981 (Exhibit D). In a letter dated 18 June 2015, AFPC/DPSIRP informed the applicant his date of birth was corrected. An AF Form 281, Notification for Change in Service Member’s Official Records, was sent to the National Personnel Records Center and filed in the Automated Records Management System. 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 and narrative reason for separation 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 documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, aside from the administrative correction noted above, we find no basis to recommend granting the additional relief sought in this application. 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-2015-00068 in Executive Session on 1 September 2015 and 23 September 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 December 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 February 2015, w/atch. Exhibit D. FBI Report, dated 12 August 2015.