RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02030 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told that his General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge would be up graded to Honorable if he stayed out of trouble for six months after his discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Apr 64, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. Between 20 Jun 64 and 12 Jul 64, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL). Between 13 Jul 64 and 22 Jul 64, the applicant was in confinement at Fort Dix, New Jersey. On 22 Jul 64, the applicant returned to his unit as Sheppard AFB, Texas. On 28 Aug 64, the applicant was reduced in rank to Airmen Basic and ordered to forfeit $41.00 a month for 2 months effective 4 Aug 64 as part of a Special Order PA-486 Disciplinary Punishment. On 9 Jan 65, the applicant failed to attend remedial driver’s school and was given a Memo for Record of 5 hours extra duty at 1 hour per day. On 19 Jan 65, the applicant was ordered to attend a mandatory study hall for unsatisfactory progress on his Career Development training. On 28 Jan 65, the applicant failed to report to his mandatory study hall. 21 Apr 65, the applicant failed to answer roll call and was found sleeping in his room. He was placed on the Airman Control roster. 20 Jan 66, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), failure to go. The applicant was demoted to Airman Basic and ordered to forfeit $25.00 a month for 2 months. 11 Feb 66, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge as an unproductive Airman, under the provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability, Section A and Section B, paragraph 4c. On 24 Feb 66, the applicant certified he understood his rights and chose not to present any rebuttal or make a statement on his behalf. On 7 Mar 66, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. On 9 Mar 66, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 2 days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 2 Jun 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-2015-02030 in Executive Session on 2 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02030 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 15.