RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02047 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other than Honorable Conditions discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had a verbal argument with no physical confrontation. He never got violent and was discharged because of that verbal confrontation. His main purpose for submitting the application is so he can get hearing aids from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 Aug 52, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 17 Feb 59, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial for violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Failure to Repair and Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey Lawful Order.. He was sentenced to forfeit of $50.00 a month, for one month. On 25 Aug 59, the commander annotated on a DD Form 789, Unit Punishment Record, that the applicant violated Article 92 of the UCMJ, derelict in performance of his duty, and Article 113 of the UCMJ, sleeping on post. He was given 2 weeks of extra duty, not to exceed more than 2 hours a day. On 1 Sept 59, the commander annotated on a DD Form 789 that the applicant violated Article 108 of the UCMJ, damaging military property of the United States through neglect. He was given 2 weeks of extra duty, not to exceed more than 2 hours a day. On 4 Sep 59, the applicant was put on an Airman Control Roster. On 11 Dec 59, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial for violating Article 134 of the UCMJ, Disorderly in Station. He was sentenced to a reduction in grade to Airmen Basic and ordered to forfeit $40.00 a month, for one month. On 28 Dec 59, the applicant was again placed on an Airmen Control Roster due to a derogatory performance report. On 4 Jan 60, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge as an unfit Airman under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airman Because of Unfitness, para 4a. The applicant confirmed military counsel was made available to him. He waived his right to a hearing and did not submit a statement on his own behalf. On 25 Jan 60, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. On 27 Jan 60, the applicant was furnished a discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and was credited with 7 years, 5 months, and 21 days of active service. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Jul 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 process. 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, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities 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. 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-2015-02047 in Executive Session on 2 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02047 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jul 15.