RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-03090
	
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He thought his discharge would be automatically upgraded after 
two years because that is what he was told.  He has not been in 
any legal trouble since his discharge 30 years ago.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, on 21 Oct 82, he enlisted in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 30 Apr 85, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of 
misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with Military 
Authorities.  The specific reasons for the action were that: 

		a.  On 7 Nov 83, he was formally counselled about a haircut 
and disregard for authority.

		b.  On 29 Nov 83, he was formally counselled for failing to 
go to his appointed place of duty.

		c.  On 24 Jan 84, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) 
for being disorderly on station.

		d.  In Apr 84, he received a vacation of suspended NJP 
after having been arrested for driving while intoxicated.

		e.  In May 84, he was verbally reprimanded for writing a 
dishonorable check.

		f.  On 10 Jan 85, he was formally counselled for visiting 
his wife in the dormitory during non-visitation hours.

		g.  On 15 Mar 85, he was formally counselled about 
financial management.

		h.  On 25 Mar 85, he received a Letter of Reprimand and 
entered financial management class for writing a dishonorable 
check.

		i.  On 9 Apr 85, he was formally counselled because his 
dormitory room did not meet standards.

		j.  On 16 Apr 85, he received NJP for writing a 
dishonorable check.

On 30 Apr 85, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
and on 8 May 85, he consulted with legal counsel and submitted a 
statement in his own behalf.

On 17 May 85, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally 
sufficient.

On 21 May 85, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
discharged with a general discharge.

On 24 May 85, the applicant received a general discharge and was 
credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 4 days of total active 
service.

On 28 Aug 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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 warrant such an action. 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-2014-03090 in Executive Session on 8 Apr 15, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                        , Panel Chair
	                  , Member
	                       , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Available Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Aug 14, w/atch.





3