RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03563

 					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made wrong choices.  He was injured playing sports and took 
pain killers.  He needed help not a discharge.  He was accused 
of stealing and selling football equipment.  

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to 
consider his untimely application as he chose to get out early 
rather than risk losing everything.  He did not have proper 
representation.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Oct 86, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

On 6 Jul 97, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending he be discharged for misconduct In Accordance With 
(IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 
5-47b.  The reasons for the recommendation include dereliction 
of his duties with subsequent relief of his duties and Letters 
of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to pay his debts, wrongful 
possession and use of drugs, wrongful appropriation of military 
property, failure to support his infant daughter, committing 
adultery, communicating a threat and failure to report for duty. 
He was advised of his right to consult legal counsel, present 
his case to an administrative discharge board, submit statements 
in his own behalf or waive his rights.   

On 14 Jul 97, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
recommendation.  He requested an administrative discharge board 
and representation by military counsel.  

On 1 Sep 87, the applicant requested a conditional waiver of the 
rights associated with an administrative discharge board 
hearing.  The waiver was contingent on his receipt of no less 
than a general discharge.  

On 21 Sep 87, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation 
for discharge legally sufficient and recommended a general 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 23 Sep 87, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s 
conditional waiver and ordered the applicant be discharged with 
a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

On 5 Oct 87, he was discharged with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct-pattern prejudicial to good order and 
discipline.” 

On 2 Oct 14, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an opportunity to 
provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving 
the service (Exhibit C).  As of this date, this office has not 
received a response.    


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 this 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, there was no evidence submitted to compel 
us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  
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-2014-03563 in Executive Session on 14 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 21 Aug 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Oct 14, w/atch.