RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01065 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for failing to report for work and giving change to a staff monitor while in correctional custody. In support of his request for clemency, he has spent the last 15 years as a certified registered nurse. He provided two nursing certificates as proof of earning both a Bachelor and Masters of Nursing degrees. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Sep 83. On 26 Mar 84, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for violating articles 86 and 92; failure to go to appointed place of duty on two separate occasions. He received a reduction in grade to airman basic and 15 days of correctional custody. The reduction in graded was suspended. On 3 Apr 84, the applicant received a two letters of counseling from the correctional custody staff for breach of restraint and failure to go. On 4 Apr 84, the applicant received letter of reprimand from the correctional custody staff for violated the rules of conduct by giving a staff monitor change for a dollar. On 24 Apr 84, the applicant’s commander vacated the suspended reduction in grade and the applicant was demoted to airman basic. On 26 Apr 84, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend administrative discharge pursuant of AFR 39- 10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-46 for general misconduct. The commander recommended a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. On 14 May 84, the applicant acknowledged legal consultation and waived his right to submit any statements on his behalf. On 17 May 84, the staff judge advocate found no administrative or procedural errors and concluded the application legally sufficient. On 24 May 84, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 8 months, and 16 days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Apr 14 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 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 RECOMMENDS 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-2014-01065 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Information Bulletin - Clemency