RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03105 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded after one year. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 23 Jul 81, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 26 Feb 86, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct – conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The reasons for the action included the applicant’s disrespectful behavior to a noncommissioned officer for which he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); driving while drunk for which he received a vacation of suspended NJP; impersonating an agent of superior authority and failure to go for which he received an Article 15; failure to arrive back in the area in order to receive sufficient rest for duty and late for duty for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); failure to annotate vital information for which he received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC); and failure to verify hourly tank sight gauge readings for which he received a LOR. On 26 Feb 86, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 12 Mar 86, the case was found to be legally sufficient and on 13 Mar 86, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 17 Mar 86, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 4 years, 7 months, and 25 days of total active service. On 15 Jan 13, a request for post-service information was forwarded to applicant for comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been 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 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 applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge for pattern of misconduct was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority. He has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of his service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to his post-service activities we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-03105 in Executive Session on 28 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jan 13, w/atch. Panel Chair