RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03741 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was doing very well in the Air Force and was pending orders to go overseas. The occurrence which resulted in his discharge was a one-time incident. He opted to leave the Air Force under “Other Than Honorable” conditions and in retrospect; he should have defended himself at a Court Martial. Since his discharge, he has felt his characterization of service did not accurately reflect the true nature of his service; however, he did not pursue an upgrade because he did not feel it would be entertained. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Aug 73. On 12 Jun 74, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to obey a lawful order. On 3 Sep 74, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for operating a vehicle while drunk in violation of Article 111 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The applicant was reduced in grade to airman basic (suspended) and ordered to forfeit $50 per month for two months. On 17 Sep 74, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for having a switch blade knife and a pellet gun in his dormitory room in violation of governing regulations. On 3 Oct 74, the applicant requested to be discharge for the good of the service in accordance with AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.78. The applicant acknowledged that if the request was approved, it may result in an undesirable discharge. He also confirmed he was afforded the opportunity to consult counsel. On 16 Oct 74, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant’s request for separation for the good of the service be approved. If approved, the commander recommended he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge. This type of discharge was recommended because of the seriousness of the charges being brought against the applicant. He is being charged with a violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, in that on or about 11 Sep 74, he unlawfully struck an Airman in the face and stomach with his fists and a violation of Article 74, Uniform Code of Military Justice, in that he unlawfully confined the same Airman. On 17 Oct 74, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. On 18 Oct 74, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service. He directed an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be furnished. On 25 Oct 74, the applicant was furnished an Under Other Than Honorable discharge, and was credited with one year, two months, and four days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Oct 14 for review and comment within 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-2014-03741 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03741 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Clemency Information Bulletin.