RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02393 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was a very young man at that time and got involved with marijuana. He was arrested by civilian police and received a probation sentence. The Air Force discharged him as undesirable. However, since his discharge, he has lived honorably; completed his college degree, raised seven children and is retiring. He is a member of the Patriot Guard Riders and a very strong patriot. He believes he has paid for his crime and respectfully request that his discharge be changed to honorable. The Board should consider his application in the interest of justice because he has lived an honorable life. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Sep 71, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 27 Aug 73, after consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, the applicant requested discharge for the Good of the Service, with service characterized as under honorable conditions. On 26 Sep 73, the squadron commander recommended his request be approved; specifically, because the applicant had difficulty in meeting Air Force standards in personal appearance and behavior. The commander noted the following incidents in the applicant's record: On 11 Jul 72, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for a traffic violation; Article 15 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) for 8 days from 19 - 27 Mar 73; his punishment consisted of suspended reduction to Airman (Amn) and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months and extra duty for 45 days; civil court conviction for possession of marijuana; pending court- martial proceedings for larceny on 12 Jun 73, and civil confinement for 26 days from 13 Jun 73 - 19 Jul 73. On 16 Oct 73, the acting staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended his request be approved and that he receive an undesirable discharge. On 29 Oct 73, the discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be furnished an "Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 1 Nov 73, the applicant was discharged with a narrative reason for separation; for the good of the service, with service characterized as UOTHC. He was credited with 2 years and 12 days of active duty service, excluding 26 days of time lost for AWOL and civil confinement. A copy of the clemency bulletin was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jun 14 (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 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 during the discharge process. 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. Considering the applicant’s overall record of service, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Should the applicant provide additional information, e.g., post-service documentation to support his claim, we would be willing to reconsider his request. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 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-2014-02393 in Executive Session on 14 Apr 015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 14, w/atch.