RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00125 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not properly trained or supervised by the non-commissioned officers in charge (NCOIC) of his assignments; however, he performed as best he could. He was informed that he would be receiving a general discharge at best, but the new base commander who did not know him vetoed his discharge. He was told that he was going to receive a review within a week; however, to his surprise in two days without any notice or review, he was discharged from the air force. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 August 1971. On 17 August 1973, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend a general discharge for unfitness under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, due to his frequent involvements of a discreditable nature with military authorities. Specifically, he received six (6) non-judicial punishment actions under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) covering ten (10) violations of Article 86, UCMJ, and one violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Also, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for seven (7) violations of Article 86, UCMJ. On 20 August 1973, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board, and elected to submit a statement in his behalf. On 30 August 1973, the chief of personnel division did not agree with the squadron or group commander’s recommendation for the applicant to receive a general discharge and recommended an undesirable discharge. On 4 September 1973, the separation authority approved a discharge inferior to the type recommended by the initiating commanders and directed an undesirable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The case was found to be legally sufficient. On 5 September 1973, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with 2 years and ten days of total active service. On 4 February 2015, a request for post-service information was forwarded to applicant for 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 lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offense 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. 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-2015-00125 in Executive Session on 20 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 23 December 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 February 2015, w/atch.