RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05173 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge should be upgraded based on his exceptional service and performance. He was in the process of addressing his family problems that significantly impacted his ability to serve. The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application as he is attempting to get treatment from a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facility. He is homeless and is in need of medical and mental health services. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 December 1982, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 20 August 1987, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged with an UOTHC discharge for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline In Accordance With (IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airman. The specific reasons for the discharge recommendation include four Article 15s for wrongful use of marijuana, assault on his wife, driving while intoxicated, damaging government property, disobeying a lawful order and failure to go. On 17 September 1987, a discharge hearing was convened IAW AFR 39-10. The board of officers was charged to consider whether the applicant should be retained or discharged. During the hearing, the applicant testified that he desired to remain in the Air Force and that his drinking problem was the result of marital discord and reconciling his marital problems. His wife related to him that she had an affair. This devastated him and led him to use marijuana. After hearing the evidence, the board recommended the applicant be discharged with an UOTHC discharge and that he not be considered for probation and rehabilitation. On 30 October 1987, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient. On 4 November 1987, the discharge authority approved an UOTHC discharge as recommended by the board of officers. The applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate for probation and rehabilitation. On 10 November 1987, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as UOTHC with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline – board hearing.” On 22 January 2015, 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. 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-2014-05173 in Executive Session on 6 August 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 December 2014 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 January 2015.