RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01285 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was given a general under honorable conditions discharge because he had a felony charge for theft. The felony was dropped to a misdemeanor and the file was sealed after he completed probation. His military attorney at the time said he could fight to stay in the Air Force, but his wife was unhappy so he decided to accept the discharge as stated. He now regrets the decision and states he always received good reviews while serving on active duty. He graduated with honors from military school and was six months ahead in testing for the next grade level. He has not had any major conflicts with the law since his discharge in 1979. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 Mar 77. On 20 Mar 79, he was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him under provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section C, paragraph 2-23 for being found guilty of grand theft. He acknowledged receiving the notification letter that same day. On 23 Mar 79, he submitted a conditional waiver of rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon receiving a general discharge. On 12 Apr 79, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) recommended he be discharged for misconduct (civil court disposition) in accordance with AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section C, paragraph 2-23. He waived his right to a board hearing contingent upon receiving a general discharge. The basis for the discharge recommendation was due to the applicant being found guilty of grand theft of a welder valued more than $200.00. He made restitution of $140.88 and was placed on probation for two years. On 13 Apr 79, the vice commander approved his discharge without probation or rehabilitation. On 19 Apr 79, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with 2 years, and 21 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. 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-2014-01285 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 25 Mar 2014. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Information Bulletin