RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01674 . COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is requesting an upgrade of his discharge in order to receive medical care for medical conditions he incurred as a result of being exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 May 68, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force (RegAF). According to documents extracted from his military personnel record (MPR), the applicant’s commander notified him on 15 Dec 71, that he was recommending him for discharge. The specific reasons for the discharge action were on 7 Dec 71, the applicant was found guilty in civilian court of burglary which is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by confinement in excess of one year. Execution of the sentence was suspended and the applicant was placed on probation for three years. Additionally, the following derogatory information was cited: Article 15 and Vacation of Suspension, counseling for failure to return to work and incidences of financial irresponsibility. According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, he was furnished a UOTHC discharge on 22 Dec 71, and was credited with 3 years, 5 months and 28 days of active service. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his undesirable discharge upgraded. The AFDRB denied his appeal on 23 Feb 76. On 23 Apr 15, a request for post-service information and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check was forwarded to the applicant (Exhibit C). In response the applicant provides several letters of character references as well as a copy of the FBI background check which reflects the incident that was the basis for his discharge (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. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely. 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, to include his rebuttal response, 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, 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. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2015-01674 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01674 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 15, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 3