RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00491 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was fighting an unjust charge of hit and run as well as driving under the influence. He claims there was no evidence and the military police brought four drunken GIs to his house before they made statements. His first sergeant was following him and asking others about his location before setting him up the morning of his discharge board. The applicant believes the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because having less than an honorable discharge has hindered him in obtaining government employment and contract jobs. He signed his discharge paperwork; however, he could have stayed in the Air Force and retired with an honorable discharge. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 80. On 26 Sep 90, he received and acknowledged, a Notification Letter – Board Hearing from his squadron commander that he was recommending him for administrative discharge under AFR 39-10, Airman Separation Manual,, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-47b, Misconduct – Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, without probation or rehabilitation. The basis for the action were two Articles 15 for which he received non-judicial punishment under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one for his curfew violation on 7 Nov 82 and the other for operating his vehicle while intoxicated and striking a fellow airman with the vehicle on 24 Aug 90. On 26 Nov 90, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for violating the base escort policy, leaving a guest he signed in to his dormitory, unescorted. Investigation revealed he had signed his guest in during duty hours on three separate occasions. His misconduct was punishable under Article 92 of the UCMJ. On 4 Dec 90, the applicant waived his right to a hearing before the administrative discharge board, conditional upon his receipt of not less than a general discharge. On 19 Dec 90, the Judge Advocate found the administrative discharge action legally sufficient. On 8 Jan 91, the discharge authority approved his commander’s recommendation for administrative discharge, indicating his misconduct did not meet minimally acceptable standards within the Air Force. The applicant acknowledged receipt on 11 Jan 91. On 22 Jan 91, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 10 years, 8 months, and 2 days of active service. 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. 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-2014-00491 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 3 Jan 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Information Bulletin