RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03859 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He became eligible for a discharge upgrade six months after the effective date of his discharge on 13 May 1987. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of a 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: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 19 February 1985 and was promoted to the grade of airman (E-2) effective 19 August 1985. The applicant received one Article 15, one Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and eight Letters of Counseling (LOC) between 18 December 1985 and 6 June 1986. He was demoted to the grade of airman basic (E-1) effective 6 June 1986 as a result of his Article 15 punishment. On 2 July 1986, the applicant was notified that his commander was recommending him for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. However, the commander also recommended the applicant be considered for probation and rehabilitation (P&R) as in the best interest of the Air Force. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge recommendation, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 9 July 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate concurred with the recommendation for a general discharge, but that its execution be conditionally suspended for P&R. On 10 July 1986, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge, but suspended the discharge according to Air Force Regulation 39-10, Chapter 7, for 12 months from the date of the applicant’s voluntary acceptance of the terms of the P&R. On 18 July 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt and accepted the terms of the P&R. On 5 May 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that his discharge be executed and that his P&R be terminated based on the applicant reporting late to work on 22 April 1987. The applicant acknowledged receipt and waived his right to submit matters in his own behalf. Following a review by the Staff Judge Advocate, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge without further P&R. On 13 May 1987, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 2 years, 2 months, and 25 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant. On 9 December 2010, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no 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. 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. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities. Based on the foregoing, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03859 in Executive Session on 19 July 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03859 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 10, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Dec 10, w/atch.