RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01992 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After his wife bounced a check at the exchange, his First Sergeant expedited his discharge. He was led to believe his only options were to accept his under honorable conditions (general) discharge or go to prison. He was young and scared at the time, but now believes he should have had more [administrative] options. He served with distinction and was awarded several ribbons for his performance.

The applicant’s complete submission, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 20 Apr 88, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 8 Jan 92, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for involuntary discharge for misconduct – minor disciplinary infractions; the basis for this action was

a.	On or about 13 Jan 89, failure to stop at a Stop Sign. At the time he did not have a valid vehicle registration, proof of insurance, or a driver license. As a result of these actions he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

b.	On or about 11 Oct 90, failure to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty. As a result of these actions he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

c.	Or	about	17	Jun	91,	he	was	notified	that	a	payment	of
$60.00 that was due to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service had not been received.

d.	Between 1 Sep 91 and 30 Sep 91, he gave a pair of issued boots to a civilian without authority to do so. As a result of these actions he received an LOC.

e.	On or about 12 Nov 91, he was notified that payments due to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service had not been received. For these actions he received an LOC.

f.	On or about 9 Dec 91, he wrote a check that was returned for insufficient funds. As a result of these actions he received an LOC.

g.	On or about 10 Dec 91, he failed to pay a just debt owed to another Air Force member. As a result of these actions he received an LOR.

h.	On or about 7 Dec 91, he wrote a check that was returned for insufficient funds. As a result of these actions he received an LOR that was entered into an Unfavorable information File (UIF).

On 22 Jan 92, the discharge was found legally sufficient.
In a signed, but an undated memorandum, the discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the characterization of service be general (under honorable conditions).

On 24 Jan 92, the applicant was furnished general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, and was credited with three years, nine months, and five days of active service.

On 14 May 115, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The applicant 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.

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
1.	

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-2015-01992 in Executive Session on 12 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 15.