RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00135 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not allowed due process by Air Force officials that charged him with payroll fraud. He was misinformed and pressured to accept an immediate discharge, fully believing the discharge would be automatically upgraded after a probationary period. He further contends extenuating circumstances in his personal life should have been considered in the characterization of his discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Jun 72, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 5 Aug 83, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge for misconduct-pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He was credited with 11 years and 2 months of active service. The applicant’s discharge package is not available for review; therefore, the circumstances precipitating the applicant’s discharge could not be verified. On 28 Jul 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. We note the applicant’s military personnel records do not contain a copy of the discharge package. Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation and character of service could not be verified. However, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, absent evidence to the contrary, we must assume the applicant’s discharge, to include his service characterization and narrative reason for separation, was proper and in compliance with the directive under which it was effected. 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 warrant such an action. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-00135 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 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 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.