RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01405 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A discharge upgrade will enable him to receive education benefits. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 July 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 19 January 1989, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory duty performance as evidenced by one Article 15, three letters of reprimand, many verbal and written counseling, and numerous insufficient check notifications. An Addendum dated 15 February 1989, amended the aforementioned Letter of Notification to include a letter of reprimand the applicant received for three checks the applicant wrote which were returned for insufficient funds. On 25 January 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and requested he be allowed to complete the 162 days left on his enlistment. In the alternative he asked that he receive an honorable discharge. On 3 March 1989, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the discharge legally sufficient. On 8 March 1989, the discharge authority indicated that he considered the commander’s recommendation, the applicant's submission and the SJA’s review and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Probation and rehabilitation was considered and deemed inappropriate. On 17 March 1989, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. His narrative reason for discharge is “Unsatisfactory Performance.” He served 3 years, 8 months and 15 days on active duty. On 24 April 2015, 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 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 are sufficiently meritorious to 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-2015-01405 in Executive Session on 3 December 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 March 2015. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 April 2015, w/atch.