RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03185 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He found out years later after his discharge that this could be requested. He adds that if his request is approved it will make it much easier to secure home loans, schooling and aide through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Additionally, it just looks and sounds better. During his enlistment his commander was trying to dishonorable discharge him because they did not see eye to eye on his married life. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Jun 83. On 23 May 84, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for being found drunk on duty a violation of Article 112 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The commander reduced him in rank to airman basic and ordered him to forfeit $100 per month for two months. On 15 Jun 84, the commander set aside the portion of his punishment relating to the forfeiture of money. On 20 Jul 84, the applicant failed to meet the minimum standards/goals of Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (SARP). While attending SARP, he was constantly disruptive to the group process while maintaining a very negative attitude for rehabilitation. They determined the applicant did not have the requisite attitude for completion and recommended he not be considered for reentry as it would set a negative precedence and would adversely affect the rehabilitation of others. On 3 Aug 84, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge for failure in alcohol rehabilitation and drug abuse in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, Section F, paragraph 5-32 and 5-49c. The commander recommended the applicant’s service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). On 7 Aug 84, the applicant waived his right to submit statements on his behalf and confirmed he had consulted counsel. On 15 Aug 84, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the discharge action and found it legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority reviewed the case and based on the applicant’s failure to successfully complete the alcohol abuse rehabilitation program approved his discharge with a service characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions). On 28 Aug 84, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 2 months, and 23 days of active service. On 5 May 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) carefully reviewed and considered all of the facts of record in the applicant’s case. After a thorough deliberation, the Board concluded a change in the type or nature of his discharge was not warranted. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Aug 14 for review and comment with 30 days. 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-2014-03185 in Executive Session on 25 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03185 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Clemency Information Bulletin.