RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00266 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told his discharge would be corrected to an Honorable. He would like to go to school and have the career that he wanted too. He states that he wasn’t liked because he was different and that messed up his career. Soldiers were crooked and lied about him. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 June 1981. On 13 September 1982, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for “Unsuitability,” under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, section A, Paragraph 2-4c. The reasons for the action were as follows: On 19 April 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for absenting himself without authority from his appointed place of duty. On 2 June 1982 he received an Article 15, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty without authority. On 30 June 1982, he received an Article 15 for willfully disobeyed a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer and he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 17 and 18 June 1992. On 3 August 1982, he received an Article 15 for disobeyed a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer and failure to go to his appointed place of duty without authority. On 3 September 1982, his Article 15 action was vacated for making a false official statement with intent to deceive. On 20 September 1982, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a rebuttal letter. On 27 September 1982, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 28 September 1982, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days of active service, but charged with lost time during the period 2 April 1982 through 6 April 1982. On 28 April 2014, 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, 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-2014-00266 in Executive Session on 2 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.