RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04524


				COUNSEL:  NONE


				HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It has been 25 years since his discharge and he was under the 
impression that it would be upgraded to give him the opportunity 
for Federal employment.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
29 Nov 85.

On 6 Dec 88, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.  
The reasons for the action included substandard performance of 
duty, tardiness, lackluster attitude/behavior toward customers, 
failure to meet dress and appearance standards, two incidences 
of failure to go, for which he received verbal counseling, a 
letter of counseling (LOC), a letter of reprimand (LOR), and 
non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which included a suspended 
reduction to the grade of airman (E-2).

On 6 Dec 88, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and of his right to consult with legal counsel and submit 
statements on his own behalf.

On 12 Dec 88, the action was found to be legally sufficient and 
the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s 
recommendation and directed the applicant’s general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.

On 15 Dec 88, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 3 years 
and 17 days of total active service.
On 1 Jun 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of 
his discharge.  The AFDRB concluded that the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process.

On 26 Jun 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 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.  In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based 
on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to 
the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us 
to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving 
the service are sufficiently meritorious to 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-2013-04524 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair 
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Jun 14.