RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00573 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to General. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told by his captain his discharge would be a general discharge because he had all good service time. His parents intercepted his mail so he was unable to sign a form. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 Oct 62. On 26 Nov 63, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be given a general discharge for “frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities” under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Paragraph 4a. The reasons for this action were as follows: a. The applicant received an Article 15, dated 3 Jun 63, for being AWOL for the period of 21 May 63 to 24 May 63, punishment consisted of forfeiture $20.00 pay per month for two months, reduction to the grade of Airman Basic, and correctional custody for 30 days. b. On 26 May 63, he was drunk and brawling, arrested by civilian police and released to military authorities. On 10 Jun 63, he told his administrative officer during a counseling session he was going to continue to get into trouble until he received a discharge, he did not want to be in the military. c. On 3 Aug 63 until 5 Aug 63, he failed to report to duty, he was counselled on 14 Aug 63 for this action. d. On 31 Aug 63 and 18 Sep 63, he was three hours late for duty on both days, he was counselled. e. On 6 Nov 63, he failed to obey a lawful order to report to his squadron orderly room. Punishment consisted of Article 15 and correctional custody for 30 days. On 2 Dec 63, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to a hearing before a board or submit statements in his own behalf. On 24 Jan 64, the staff judge advocate found the action legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 7 Feb 64, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge and that the unit commander provide a statement certifying that the applicant was made aware that the type of discharge he received was determined on the basis of his conduct and/or performance during his service and that the commander did not in any way advise or infer that the applicant’s future good behavior as a civilian would be a basis for reviewing the undesirable character of service. On 13 Feb 64, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 24 days of active service, excluding lost time from 21 May 63 to 23 May 63. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. In response, the applicant submitted additional documents, to include a copy of his FBI report (Exhibit D). 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. Although, the applicant contends he was told he would be given a general discharge, he has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the ultimate characterization of his service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. While we note the applicant’s commander initially recommended he be furnished a general (under honorable conditions) character of service, and the subsequent legal review recommended the applicant be issued said character of service, the discharge authority, in the exercise of his discretionary authority, determined that an undesirable discharge was appropriate to the circumstances. Therefore, in view of the fact the applicant has presented no evidence that would lead us to believe that the discharge authority’s ultimate determination resulted from an error or represented an abuse of said authority we are not persuaded that corrective action is warranted. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. 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-2014-00573 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Sep 14, w/atchs.