RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00136 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The record is unjust because she was punished for a behavioral incident and then discharged months after the fact. She had orders to the Philippines, orders were cancelled, reenlistment was revoked and she was subsequently discharged. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 25 Apr 88. On 3 May 91, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge for minor disciplinary infractions under the provisions of AFR-39-10, Paragraph 5.46. The reasons for the action were as follows: Violation of TAFBR 11-1, Chapter 6, being in a dormitory building after visiting hours, for which she received a Letter Of Reprimand/Unfavorable Information File and placement on the control roster on 8 Apr 91. On or about 28 Dec 90, she wrote a check to the Navy Exchange without sufficient funds to cover the check, for which she received a Letter of Counseling. On or about 17 Aug 90, with intent to deceive, she made a false official statement to Security Police, for which she received an Article 15; punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to Airman, thirty days extra duty, and forfeiture of $75.00 per month for two months. On 2 August 1990, she made a false statement involving payment of two bounced checks and two movie rentals, for which she received an LOR that was placed in her UIF. On 6 Mar 90, she failed to report to her duty section at the scheduled time, for which she received an LOC. On or about 30 Oct 88, she wrote a check to the Base Exchange without sufficient funds to cover the check, for which she received a LOC. On 10 May 91, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived her right to submit statements or rebuttal. On 16 May 91, the action was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority subsequently concurred with the recommendation and directed the applicant’s discharge. On 4 Jun 91, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with three years, one month, and ten days of active service. On 28 Apr 14, 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. (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 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, due to the applicant’s failure to provide information regarding her post-service activities, we cannot conclude that such consideration is warranted. 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-2014-00136 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, 28 Apr 14, w/atch.