RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04642 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not given the proper guidance, counseling, or support when his first offense was committed. He was a troubled and depressed young man who had recently lost his father and turned to alcohol. Had the Air Force taken the initiative to help him, rather than punish him, his life would not have continued down the dark path of alcoholism. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s military personnel records, he initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Dec 85. On 8 Jan 90, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge for a pattern of misconduct – discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities. The reasons for the action included the following: a. On or about 8 Aug 89, the applicant drove while drunk, for which he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial, confined for four months, forfeited $450.00 pay per month for four months, and was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1). b. During Nov 88, he drove a vehicle while intoxicated and failed to report this offense to his unit, for which his non- commissioned officer status was vacated. c. On or about 5 Dec 86, he was derelict in the performance of his duties, for which he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which included suspended reduction to the grade of airman first class (E-3), forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for two months and thirty days of correctional custody. d. On or about 2 Nov 86, he was drunk and beat his wife and drove under the influence of alcohol, for which he received a letter of reprimand (LOR). e. From on or about Dec 85 to Jan 86, he wrote numerous checks, with insufficient funds, for which he received an LOR. On 8 Jan 90, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and requested a conditional waiver of his right to appear before an administrative discharge board, provided he receive a discharge characterization of at least general (under honorable conditions). On 22 Feb 90, the discharge authority rejected the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver of the administrative discharge board proceedings. On 12 Mar 90, the applicant submitted a request for an unconditional waiver of the administrative discharge board proceedings. On 22 Mar 90, the applicant’s request for an unconditional waiver of the administrative discharge board proceedings was found to be legally sufficient. On 23 Mar 90, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s unconditional waiver and concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. On 26 Mar 90, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 7 years, 5 months, and 22 days of total active service. On 27 Jun 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. In response, the applicant provides copies of two supporting statements and an expanded personal statement describing his activities since leaving the service. 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 this case; however, we find no evidence or an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s discharge was carried out in accordance with the directive under which it was affected and that he was provided full administrative due process. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude that his contributions to his community since leaving the service are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence the discharge was disproportionate to the circumstances, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or the applicant was deprived of rights to which he was entitled, we find no basis to recommend favorable consideration of the application. 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-2013-04642 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04642 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, 15 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit E. FBI Report.