RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02534 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told at the time of his separation that his characterization of service would automatically be upgraded to Honorable, after six months. It has now been more than 37 years since his separation, and in those 37 years he has done much to redeem his good name and establish himself as an honorable and upstanding member of the community. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 Oct 77, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 12 Jan 78, the applicant was counseled for being late for a GI Party. On 16 Jan 78, the applicant was counseled for encountering personal problems with his area student leader. On 17 Jan 78, the applicant was counseled for being late for mandatory military formation. On 18 Jan 78, the applicant was absent from school from 0610 to 1000 hours. On 20 Jan 78, the applicant was absent from school from 0610 to 1000 hours. On 24 Feb 78, the applicant was involved in a confrontation with a Noncommissioned Officer in the pool room over putting his cigarette on the pool table burning the edge of the table. On 9 Mar 78, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for using abusive and obscene language to a Noncommissioned Officer. He also received an Unfavorable Information File. On 24 Mar 78, the applicant was notified and acknowledged that his commander was not recommending him for promotion to E-2 based on receiving a Letter of Reprimand. On 26 Mar 78, the applicant failed to report to his appointed Charge of Quarters post after being notified by the First Sergeant. On 27 Mar 78, the applicant was counseled for not having a clean room. On 4 Apr 78, the applicant consulted counsel and accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for failing to go, a violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was ordered to forfeit $75.00 a month for one month. On the same day, he also failed to report for squadron roll call. On 17 Apr 78, the applicant was notified and acknowledged that his commander was withholding his promotion to E-2 based on his pending discharge. On 18 Apr 78, the applicant through counsel appealed the Nonjudicial Punishment. On 24 Apr 78, the appeal authority reviewed his request and denied the appeal. On the same date, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was initiating discharge actions against him under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program. The basis for this action was his demonstrated and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s actions and submitted a Conditional Waiver of Administrative Discharge Board. On 26 Apr 78, the Deputy Commander for Technical Training accepted the applicant’s Conditional Waiver. On 2 May 78, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. He directed the applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge without Probation and rehabilitation. On 4 May 78, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with six months and four days of active service. On 9 Jul 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. 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 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-2015-02534 in Executive Session on 1 Mar 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02534 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 15. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 15.