RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00289 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he got into legal trouble, his leadership convinced him to take the UOTHC discharge in order to avoid going to military prison after he completed his civilian prison time. This was a lie and robbed him of his military career; because he went on to serve his country as an Army contractor. The UOTHC discharge is preventing him from getting medical and educational assistance. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Jan 93. On 14 Jun 93, the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for violating Article 107 of the UCMJ, False Official Statements. On 8 Jul 93, the applicant received a LOR for violating Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey Order or Regulation. On 26 Jul 93, the applicant was incarcerated by the Solano County Sheriff’s Department for being involved in an off-base drive by shooting. After his confession, he was charged with: shooting at an inhabited residence with a .380 automatic handgun, shooting at an unoccupied vehicle, discharging a weapon in a negligent manner, conspiracy, and shooting at a traffic control device. On 1 Sep 93, he plead “no contest” to shooting at an inhabited residence. On 15 Sep 93, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for civilian conviction, in accordance with to AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. On 3 Nov 93, a Discharge Review Board hearing found that the applicant was subject to discharge under AFR 39-10 for his civilian conviction. Under California Penal Code Section 1016, the legal effect of a plea of nolo contendere to a crime punishable as a felony is the same as that of a plea of guilty. This misconduct usually warrants an UOTHC discharge. The Board recommended that probation and rehabilitation not be offered because of his brief but undistinguished military record. On 22 Dec 93, the staff judge advocate advised the discharge authority that the proceedings, findings, and recommendations were legally sufficient to support the separation of the applicant in accordance with AFR 39-10, with an UOTHC discharge. On 23 Dec 93, the discharge authority directed the applicant to be separated from the Air Force for a civilian conviction with an UOTHC discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. On 4 Jan 93, the applicant was furnished an UOTHC discharge, and was credited with six months, and sixteen days of active service. On 2 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. The applicant presented no evidence he was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied during his discharge proceedings. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the applicant did not respond to the request for post-service information. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the 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-2015-00289 in Executive Session on 9 Sep 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00289 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Feb 15.