RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00491
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to 
honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was fighting an unjust charge of hit and run as well as driving 
under the influence.  He claims there was no evidence and the 
military police brought four drunken GIs to his house before they 
made statements.  His first sergeant was following him and asking 
others about his location before setting him up the morning of his 
discharge board.

The applicant believes the Board should find it in the interest of 
justice to consider his untimely application because having less 
than an honorable discharge has hindered him in obtaining 
government employment and contract jobs.

He signed his discharge paperwork; however, he could have stayed 
in the Air Force and retired with an honorable discharge.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 May 
80.

On 26 Sep 90, he received and acknowledged, a Notification Letter 
– Board Hearing from his squadron commander that he was 
recommending him for administrative discharge under AFR 39-10, 
Airman Separation Manual,, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-47b, 
Misconduct – Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, 
without probation or rehabilitation.  The basis for the action 
were two Articles 15 for which he received non-judicial punishment 
under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one for his 
curfew violation on 7 Nov 82 and the other for operating his 
vehicle while intoxicated and striking a fellow airman with the 
vehicle on 24 Aug 90.

On 26 Nov 90, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
violating the base escort policy, leaving a guest he signed in to 
his dormitory, unescorted.  Investigation revealed he had signed 
his guest in during duty hours on three separate occasions.  His 
misconduct was punishable under Article 92 of the UCMJ. 

On 4 Dec 90, the applicant waived his right to a hearing before 
the administrative discharge board, conditional upon his receipt 
of not less than a general discharge.  On 19 Dec 90, the Judge 
Advocate found the administrative discharge action legally 
sufficient.  

On 8 Jan 91, the discharge authority approved his commander’s 
recommendation for administrative discharge, indicating his 
misconduct did not meet minimally acceptable standards within the 
Air Force.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 11 Jan 91.   

On 22 Jan 91, the applicant received a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge and was credited with 10 years, 8 months, 
and 2 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 (Exhibit 
C).  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, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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, we do not find the 
evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on 
that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


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-2014-00491 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 3 Jan 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1