RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00250 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly discharged. He was innocent of the charges brought forward resulting in his general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Jul 63. On 10 Jun 82, the applicant received an Article 15 for operating a vehicle while drunk. Non-judicial punishment (NJP): reduction to the grade of staff sergeant and forfeiture of $150. NJP mitigated by squadron commander on 10 Dec 82. On 15 Oct 85, the applicant received an Article 15 for operating a vehicle while drunk. NJP: reduction to the grade of staff sergeant and forfeiture of $250 per month for two months. The execution of the portion of punishment for reduction to the grade of staff sergeant was suspended until 16 May 86. On 27 Jan 86, the applicant received the following: 1.  He was advised by his squadron commander that as a result of a 1 Jan 86 incident (assault on another airman), he was vacating the 15 Oct 85 suspended punishment; reducing his grade to staff sergeant with a new date of rank of staff sergeant being 18 Nov 85. 2.  A letter of reprimand because he was positively identified through a 9 Jan 86 urinalysis testing as having used cocaine. 3.  A letter of notification that his squadron commander was recommending his discharge for drug abuse in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, para 5-49c. On 5 Feb 86, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s notification that he was recommending discharge. On 24 Feb 86, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was referring the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 10 Mar 85 to 26 Jan 86 because of his off-duty performance being significantly less than acceptable for an individual of his tenure and assigned responsibilities. Also, his alcohol related incidents, including driving while intoxicated and belligerent, argumentative actions reflect bad judgment and the lack of professionalism and self-control. Finally, a urinalysis performed on him proved positive for cocaine use. On 4 Mar 86, legal counsel reviewed the administrative discharge action in the case of the applicant, and recommended he be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 7 Mar 86, the applicant provided a response to the referral APR. He offered a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing, contingent on his receipt of no less than a general discharge, if the recommendation for his discharge was approved. On 11 Apr 86, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 2 Jun 86, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the approved administrative discharge pursuant to AFR 39-10 in the case of the applicant be executed. The Secretary denied lengthy service probation. On 11 Jul 86, the applicant was furnished a general discharge under honorable conditions, and was credited with fifteen years, six months, and six days of active service. On 6 Aug 86, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, appealing his general discharge under honorable conditions. On 25 Jun 87, the applicant was notified that on 22 May 87 the Air Force Discharge Review Board carefully reviewed and considered all facts of his case, and concluded a change in the type or nature of his discharge was not warranted. On 27 Jan 15, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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. The applicant presented no evidence he was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied during his discharge proceedings. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the applicant did not respond to the request for post-service information. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2015-00250 in Executive Session on 9 Sep 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00250 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 15. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 15, w/atch.