RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02084 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of discharge be changed from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge is preventing him from obtaining gainful employment. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 February 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 14 March 1979, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment. The specific reason for this action was he withheld knowledge of prior military service in the U.S. Navy, for which he received a general discharge on 5 July 1978. On 14 March 1979, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. On 19 March 1979, the judge advocate’s office reviewed the case and determined it was legally sufficient and recommended a general discharge certificate be furnished. On 20 March 1979, the discharge authority approved a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for erroneous enlistment. On 23 March 1979, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He served 1 month and 23 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states based on the documentation filed in his master personnel records, the discharge, to include the characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant had less than 180 days active service this period and did not receive an entry level separation because the special court-martial authority approved a general discharge. DPSOS states the applicant was previously discharged from the U.S. Navy on 5 July 1978 after serving one year and nine days of active service. The applicant’s record also shows the applicant was charged with lost time. DPSOS found no evidence of an error or injustice during the discharge processing. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 January 2011 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, there has been no response 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 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 3 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 10, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 5 Nov 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 11.