RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04068 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Before being discharged she was notified her discharge would be upgraded to Honorable. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 26 Sep 91. On 10 Nov 92, the applicant’s commander notified her he was going to recommend her for discharge due to “minor disciplinary infractions.” She was advised of her right to legal military council and to submit statements on her own behalf. The reasons for this action were: a.  On or about 31 Jul 92, she failed to report to her commander as directed by her first sergeant. For this she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). b.  On or about 27 Jun 92 to 14 Jul 92, with intent to defraud, she used an AT&T calling card to charge phone calls in the excess amount of $242.92, knowing that her actions were unauthorized by the owner of the card. For this she received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ, was reduced to the grade of Airman Basic (AB)--suspended until 23 Feb 93, forfeited $183.00 pay, spent seven days in correctional custody and received seven days of extra duty. c.  On or about 8 Sep 92, she failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty. For this her commander vacated the suspension of her reduction to the grade of AB, establishing her new date of rank to AB as 24 Aug 92. d.  On or about 20 Oct 12, she failed to obey an order to perform cleaning detail. For this she received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), forfeited $392.00 pay, was restricted to base for 15 days and received 15 days of extra duty. The separation action was determined to be legally sufficient, and on 2 Dec 92, the discharge authority directed she be discharged with a General discharge without probation or rehabilitation. On 3 Dec 92, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Separation of “Misconduct—Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions,” and was credited with one year, two months, and eight days of active service. On 27 Oct 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. In response, she submitted a letter of support from an acquaintance (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. 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, the documentation the applicant submitted concerning her post-service activities was insufficient for the Board to determine her accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which she was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-04068 in Executive Session on 9 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Oct 14. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Oct 14, w/atch. Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Nov 14.