RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00025 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told he could request his discharge be upgraded after six months. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, on 12 Apr 83, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 25 Sep 84, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a Pattern of Misconduct, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-47a. The specific reasons for his action were: a. On 1 Feb 84, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to obey a lawful order. b. On 8 Mar 84, the applicant received a LOR for failure to go. c. On 22 Mar 84, the applicant received a LOR for operating a vehicle while drunk. d. On 13 Jul 84, the applicant’s commander issued him nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. e. On 14 Aug 84, the applicant failed correctional custody rehabilitation. On 25 Sep 84, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, and on 3 Oct 84, he consulted counsel and submitted statements in his behalf. On 10 Oct 84, the case was found to be legally sufficient and on the 15 Oct 84, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 26 Oct 84, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities” and was credited with 1 year, 6 months and 15 days of total active service. On 29 Jan 15, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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; 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 warrant such an action. 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-2015-00025 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jan 15.