RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03617 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He desires an upgrade in order to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) educational benefits. In support of his request, the applicant provides correspondence from the DVA and a class schedule. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 Sep 92, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On, 29 Sep 92, the applicant signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB), indicating that he understood he must receive an honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. On 7 Jun 93, the applicant was notified of pending discharge action. Specifically, the commander cited minor disciplinary infractions as the basis for discharge. The applicant’s misconduct included two Letters of Reprimand with Unfavorable Information Files for failure to go and failure to complete assigned duties; two Records of Individual Counseling, a DD Form 1408, Armed Forces Traffic Ticket, for driving without proof of registration and insurance, and three memorandums for record for a failed dormitory room spot check, late duty reporting, and failing to do an assigned task. On 10 Jun 93, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification for discharge, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 15 Jun 93, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. On 16 Jun 10, the discharge authority concurred and directed discharge. On 18 Jun 93, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with nine months and one day of active service. On 15 Dec 08, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge, citing the applicant was provided full administrative due process and his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) states they were unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of the information furnished. On 7 Dec 10, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for a response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, it is our opinion that corrective action is not warranted. 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 that the characterization of his service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. 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 material 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 Docket Number BC-2010-03617 in Executive Session on 15 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Dec 10, w/atch.