RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01207 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had personality conflicts with his supervisor. He did not have any run-ins with anyone else and there were no cases where he failed to follow orders or obey the law. He showed up for work in a timely manner and did not take excessive time off. While he may not have been a fit for the military, he followed orders and did what was requested of him. It has been 30 years since his discharge. He has lived an honorable life, has committed no crimes and contributed positively to society. He would like this issue which troubles him to be corrected. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 August 1984, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 11 September 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander of his decision to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force In Accordance With (IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-47a. The reasons for the action include a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 10 checks unpaid due to insufficient funds, an Article 15 for failure to pay his debts, a LOR for having an unescorted guest in the dormitory and use of disrespectful language, and an Article 15 for disorderly conduct. On 11 September 1985, the applicant acknowledged the discharge recommendation. In a subsequent memorandum dated 19 September 1985, he indicated he had consulted counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf. According to a memorandum dated 7 October 1985, the acting staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient. On 9 October 1985, the discharge authority approved the recommendation the applicant be discharged. On 28 October 1985, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-pattern discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities.” He was credited with 1 year, 2 months and 16 days on active duty. In a memorandum dated 1 May 1987, the applicant was advised the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) had denied his request for upgrade of his discharge. The board found that neither the evidence of record nor the information provided by the applicant substantiated an inequity or impropriety which would justify a change of his discharge. In a letter dated 29 April 2015, the applicant states that he has been arrested twice and both times the charges were dropped and provides a copy of the FBI report dated 29 April 2015. The first incident was after he turned 18 and before he joined the Air Force. He was stopped by a school officer who advised he was not allowed to ride his bicycle in front of the school. All charges were dropped as he was not on school property and was not loitering. The second incident was on his way home from work when he was arrested for carrying a gun that he was licensed to carry. All charges were dropped but not until he had spent five days in jail waiting for his court appearance as he did not have the means to make bail. These incidents were over 26 years ago. He has avoided situations that cause confusion or misinterpretation and has had no other discussions with officers. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 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 this 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01207 in Executive Session on 29 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 March 2015. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 April 2015, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 April 2015, w/atch.