RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01693 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be upgraded from General (Under Honorable Conditions) to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She deserves an Honorable discharge. Her records show that even though there was some misconduct, her overall record was excellence. In support of her request, the applicant provided an illegible, undated letter from what appears to be her previous wing commander. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Dec 91, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 14 Oct 92, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for unlawfully striking, biting and pointing a dangerous weapon at her spouse, in violation of Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). She was reduced in grade to Airman (suspended) and ordered to forfeit $100.00 a month for one month and given 15 days of extra duty. On 28 Apr 95, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for willfully refraining from providing alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. She received 25 days of extra duty and ordered to forfeit $500.00. On 2 Aug 95, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for disorderly conduct in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. She was reduced in grade to Airman First Class. On 8 Aug 95, the applicant was notified by her commander he was recommending her discharge for misconduct, specifically, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline under the authority of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.50.2. He also recommended her service be characterized with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. On 15 Aug 95, the applicant submitted a written statement on her behalf. On 18 Aug 95, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. The discharge authority approved the involuntary discharge. On 21 Aug 95, the applicant was furnished a General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 8 months, and 21 days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Oct 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, 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 she 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-2015-01693 in Executive Session on 7 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01693 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Oct 15.