RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00457 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Other than using poor judgment in sharing an offensive joke told to him by an Air Force retiree, he deserves an upgraded discharge. He has remained active with veteran’s organizations as well as volunteering at the local VA hospital. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Apr 90. On 26 Nov 91 he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to report to his duty location and not notifying anyone in advance he would not be able to attend the scheduled meeting. The commander established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) due to these actions. On 6 Apr 92 and 4 May 92, he received LORs for failing to maintain body fat within Air Force standards. He had only decreased 1% after being enrolled in the Air Force Weight Management Program (WMP), which requires at least a 2% reduction. According to a letter dated, 16 Jun 92, the applicant had a personal hearing with his commander regarding his progress in the WMP. The commander stated that since this was his third failure to maintain Air Force weight management standards he would recommend that demotion action be taken. On 6 Jul 92, he was administratively demoted to the rank of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFR 39-30, Administrative Demotion of Airmen. On 13 Oct 92, the applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer by giving her a piece of paper which contained a racially and sexually offensive story. He was reduced in rank to airman basic (E-1) and restricted to the base for 60 days. On 28 Oct 92 his squadron commander notified him he was recommending him for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Airman Separation Manual, Paragraph 5-46, Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant waived his right to counsel and did not submit any personal statements for consideration. On 4 Nov 92, the discharge action was found legally sufficient sighting the significant negative aspects of his conduct outweighing the positive aspects of his military record. His commander approved the discharge without probation or rehabilitation, on 6 Nov 92. On 17 Nov 92, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation as Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions. He was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 25 days of active service excluding 2 months and 21 days of lost time. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and was notified on 12 Dec 94 that they had carefully reviewed and considered all the facts of record and concluded no change in his discharge was warranted. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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, to include his rebuttal response, 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, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis. 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-2014-00457 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Information Bulletin, not dated.