RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02035

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was never offered rehabilitation and was unjustly discharged 
based on one isolated event in 20 months of service with no 
other adverse actions.  He has almost ten years of loyal service 
with the Department of Homeland Security.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
22 Jan 82.

On 19 Jul 83, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend a general discharge for a pattern of 
misconduct under the provisions of AFR 39-10, para 5-47a.  The 
basis for the action was as follows:

	a. On 24 Jun 83, the applicant wrongfully used and possessed 
marijuana.  For this offense he was reduced to the grade of 
Airman Basic (E-1), forfeited $250.00 pay per month for two 
months and confined for 30 days.

	b. On 29 Apr 83, the applicant reported late for duty, for 
which he received a letter of counseling (LOC).

	c. On 18 Mar 83, the applicant failed to maintain sufficient 
funds in his bank account, for which he received a letter of 
reprimand (LOR).

	d. On 8 Mar 83, the applicant reported late for duty, for 
which he received a LOR.
	e. On 16 Mar 83, the applicant was substandard in his duty 
performance, for which he received a LOC.

	f. On 9 Dec 82, the applicant reported late for duty, for 
which he received a LOC.

	g. On 22 Oct 82, the applicant failed to meet his scheduled 
appointment, for which he received a LOC.

	h. On 21 Sep 82, the applicant wrongfully made an illegal 
turn, for which he received a ticket and a LOC.

On 1 Aug 83, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority subsequently approved the commander’s 
recommendation.

On 5 Aug 83, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, 
and was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days of active 
service.   

On 3 Aug 85, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to 
honorable.  On 7 Oct 86, the AFDRB denied his request, 
concluding that discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority and that he was 
provided full administrative due process.

On 25 Aug 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 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. 


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-2014-02035 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 May 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.