RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02049 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He knows the mistakes he made in the past affect his future and he realizes how not following through with his commitment to the Air Force was a mistake. He knows he cannot change the past but would like a chance to make a better future for himself and his family. He served as a law enforcement officer for seven years and is applying to the University of Phoenix to get a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice. He feels having an Honorable discharge would look more favorable to future employers. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 Jan 92, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 24 Sep 92, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to pay creditors in a timely manner, a violation of Article 134, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 22 Feb 93, the applicant received a LOR for operating a motor vehicle without proper insurance coverage in violation of Air Force Regulations and State law. On 2 Mar 93, the applicant received a LOR for failure to stay at home after being placed on 24-hour quarters by a physician. On 29 Mar 93, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for reporting 35 minutes late to work. On 25 Jun 93, the applicant received a LOR for failing to pay creditors in a timely manner, a violation of Article 134, of the UCMJ. On 6 Jul 93, the applicant’s commander established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on the applicant. On 20 Jul 93, the applicant received a LOR for writing three bad checks when he knew he had insufficient funds. This LOR was placed in the applicant’s UIF. On 10 Sep 93, the applicant received a LOR for failing to obey a direct and verbal order. He reported to squadron recall without any serviceable uniforms or field jackets as required for Prime Beef deployments. which goes against AFR 35-10, Air Force Dress and Appearance. This LOR was placed into the applicant’s UIF. On 21 Sep 93, the applicant’s commander placed him on a control roster. On 6 Oct 93, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharged for minor disciplinary infractions in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.46. On the same day, the applicant acknowledged he had consulted legal counsel and was submitting the following statement on his behalf: “I fully concur with the recommended action. I believe my speedy discharge is in the best interest of myself and the United States Air Force. Your assistance in my prompt discharge will be greatly appreciated.” On 12 Oct 93, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. On 14 Oct 93, the Wing Commander approved the applicant’s discharge and directed a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 20 Oct 93, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 12 days of active service. On 25 May 94, the applicant sent in a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board requesting his General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge upgraded to Honorable. On 1 Dec 95, the Air Force Discharge Review Board concluded that there existed no legal and equitable basis for an upgrade of his discharge thus the applicants discharge should not be changed. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 22 May 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 process. 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. 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-2015-02049 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-2015-02049 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 15.