RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01726 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged with 15 years of service on an error of taking a plea agreement to continue service provided he accepted a reduction in rank. He was allowed to continue his service according to the military jury. Upon returning to duty, his commander bucked the General Court-Martial agreement and refused to release me back to an aircraft unit; but, instead kept him performing administrative duties. Until this time he had never received a negative report. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Jun 77, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 9 Nov 93, the applicant was convicted by a General Court-Martial for filling a fraudulent travel voucher in violation of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was demoted to E-5, ordered to forfeiture $100.00 pay per month for 6 months and confined for 3 months. The applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty” to “Military Confinement”. On 14 Dec 93, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for having an adulterous affair and impersonating an officer. On 12 Jan 94, applicant was notified by his commander he was recommending him for discharge for a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense in according with AFR 39-10, Separation upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, paragraph 5-47b and 5-49c. On 19 Jan 94, the applicant requested an administrative discharge board hearing and requested that if a discharge was approved, that he be considered for lengthy service probation. On 21 Jan 94, the applicant’s duty status changed from “Military Confinement” to “Present for Duty”. On 30 Mar 94, the Air Force Legal Service Agency examined the record of trial, and the findings and sentence was found to be supported in law. The Judge Advocate General did not direct review of the record by the United States Air Force Court of Military Review. Accordingly, the findings and sentence in this case is final. On 2 Sep 94, the applicant received a LOR for failure to go in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ. On 22 Sep 94, the applicant provided a rebuttal to the 2 Sep 94, LOR. On 3 Oct 94, the applicant was notified that the reason for discharge was amended to state the primary reason for discharge was a Commission of a Serious Offense (other Serious Offense) under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5.29c. On 21 Oct 94, the discharge authority directed a Board be convened to consider the discharge action pertaining to the applicant. On 30 Nov 94, the applicant was again notified that the reason for discharge was amended to state the primary reason for discharge was a Pattern of Misconduct (Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities) under paragraph 5-47a. On 9 Dec 94, the applicant was notified for a third time that the reason for his discharge was amended to an allegation concerning an adulterous affair to the statement of reason. On 20 Dec 94, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of the discharge board, condition on receipt of no less than a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge and lengthy service probation consideration. On 29 Dec 94, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s conditional waiver to receive no less than a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. On 7 Feb 95, the discharge authority again accepted the applicant’s conditional waiver and approved a General discharge under honorable conditions; but also recommended he not be granted probation because he did not meet retention criteria and his length of service did not mitigate his misconduct. On 14 Feb 95, the Legal Council, on behalf of the applicant, submitted a letter in support of a lengthy service probation. On 3 Mar 95, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the applicant’s request for Lengthy Service Consideration in lieu of his pending discharge and found the case legally sufficient for continued processing. On 13 Mar 95, the MAJCOM Director of Personnel thoroughly reviewed the case file and recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for “Lengthy Service Consideration”. On 4 May 95, the Secretary of the Air Force, denied the applicant’s request for Lengthy Service Probation and directed he be discharged by execution of the approved Air Force Regulation 39-10 action. On 7 Jun 95, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 17 years, 9 months, and 4 days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 29 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days. 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-2015-01726 in Executive Session on 7 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01726 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 15. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 15.