RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04699 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The characterization of service while on active duty does not accurately reflect his overall performance. While on active duty, like many young airman he experience a time or two of financial instability and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is reflective of those instances. Now that he has had a modicum of success, in the years after his discharge, he has gone on to lead a good life. He got married and raised a daughter and two sons. He has been blessed with five grandchildren and even earned his Associates Degree in Criminal Justice. Finally, it should be noted that he serves as a pastor and Chief Chaplain for the North Las Vegas Police Department. The accusation of unsatisfactory performance stated on his DD Form 214, is neither reflective nor indicative of his character of service. He just wants his record to reflect honorable service. In support of his request, the applicant has provided a personal letter, a copy of is DD Form 214, and copy of his current resume. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 May 80. On 8 May 84, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for failure to go and dereliction of duty, violations of Articles 86 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was reduced in grade to airman first class and sent to correction custody for a period of 30 days. On 18 Jan 85, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for dereliction of duty. On 11 Apr 85, the applicant received a LOR for dereliction of duty. On 26 Jun 85, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling for failing to properly carry out financial obligations. On 7 Aug 85, the applicant received a Record of Individual Counseling for nonpayment of a bill. On 12 Aug 85, the applicant was notified by his commander that we was recommending him for discharge for unsatisfactory performance in accordance to AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.26a and 5-26d. On 13 Aug 85, the applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board. He consulted counsel and submitted a statement on his behalf. The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. On 19 Aug 85, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s unconditional waiver and directed a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge without probation or rehabilitation. On 21 Aug 85, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 3 months, and 10 days of active service. On 14 Aug 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s discharge and concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. In view of the foregoing findings the Board concluded that there existed no legal or equitable basis to upgrade his discharge. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jun 15 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, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities 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-2014-04699 in Executive Session on 25 Aug 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04699 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jun 15.