RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00047 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was promised by the recruiting office he would be working in motor pool due to his scores in mechanics. Upon completion of Basic Military Training he was given a job in Air Police. He was disappointed and could not function. At the same time, his father started having heart attacks, so he did what he needed to do to get home. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 10 Jun 59. On 25 Feb 60, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for consuming alcohol within six hours of duty. On 26 Feb 60, the applicant received an Article 15 for driving through a school zone at twenty-five miles per hour and the speed limit was fifteen miles per hour. His punishment consisted of restriction to the limits of the base for two weeks. On 26 Feb 60, the applicant was tried by summary court-martial based on the charge of incapacitating himself for duty by prior indulgence in alcohol. He pled guilty and was found guilty. The applicant was sentenced in accordance with his plea by a military judge to confinement at hard labor for twenty-five days, forfeiture of $50.00 of pay, and reduction to the grade of airman basic. On 8 Mar 60, the applicant received an LOC for the past nine months of service and specifically in regard to the violation of city traffic laws and the incident involving incapacitation for sentry duty. On 9 Mar 60, the applicant received an LOC for reporting to duty on 25 Feb 60 under the influence of alcohol. On 23 Mar 60, the applicant received an LOC for failing to bathe at regular intervals or daily, and that his laundry bag was full of dirty, sweaty and smelly items of clothing. On 2 Apr 60, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for “Unfitness,” under the provisions of AFR 39-17. The reason for the action was the applicant’s demonstrated unfitness for further retention because of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities. Specifically, on 26 Feb 60, he was apprehended by the local police for driving through a school zone at 25 miles per hour (m.p.h.), knowing the said speed limit was 15 m.p.h.; he had been counseled repeatedly counselled and taken to the shower room and made to take a bath, as his personal hygiene did not measure up to Air Force standards, and on 26 Feb 60, he was tried by a Summary courts-martial for incapacitating himself for by prior indulgence in alcoholic beverages. On 9 Mar 60, the applicant submitted a letter to his commander requesting a discharge that outlined his reasons as to why he no longer wished to be in the Air Force. On 10 Apr 60, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements or rebuttal concerning the proposed discharge action. On 12 May 60, the applicant was furnished with a general discharge, and was credited with 10 months and 11 days of active service, excluding lost time from 26 Feb 60 to 17 Mar 60. The applicant originally applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 7 Dec 13; however, he was advised that since it had been over 15 years since his discharge, he could no longer avail himself of that avenue of relief and must submit an application to the Board. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and 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 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, due to the applicant’s failure to provide information regarding his post-service activities, we cannot conclude that such consideration is warranted. 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-2014-00047 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00047: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.