RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01476 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After an honorable first enlistment, conditions declined during his assignment at . He was wrongly disciplined for alleged infractions because he was hated by his members of his chain of command. He was wrongfully charged for an intoxicated driving incident that never occurred. He further contends that he asked for help but none was offered. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Jan 82, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 22 Jul 83, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory performance. The reasons for the action were failure to comply with dress and appearance standards, for which he received counselling; failure to go to his appointed place of duty, for which he received punishment pursuant to an Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); driving while intoxicated and causing an accident, for which he received a letter of reprimand and was placed on a Control Roster for declining duty performance, bearing, and behavior; and two instances of writing a check against an account with insufficient funds, for which he received a letter of counselling. 28 Jul 83, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. He waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board or submit statements on his own behalf. He did not waive his right to counsel. On 8 Sep 83, the discharge was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation the same day. On 9 Sep 83, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for unsatisfactory performance, and was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 25 days of active service. On 4 Aug 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 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 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to 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. 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-2014-01476 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14.