RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01011 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and correct his reason for discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had good conduct during his time in the service, validated by the award of the good conduct medal. The arrest and charges related to the applicant violating a restraining order were dismissed by the local authorities. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Oct 86, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 16 Dec 88, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reasons for the action were: Misconduct – Pattern discreditable involvement with Military or Civilian authorities. The reasons for the action included the following: a. On 12 Jul 88, the applicant received an Article 15 for unlawfully striking his four-year old daughter with a belt. For this he received 30 days extra duty, a suspended reduction to the grade of E-3, and suspended forfeitures of $100.00 per month. b. On 22 Jul 88, the applicant violated a lawful order by visiting his wife at base quarters. c. On 31 Oct 88, the applicant was convicted in state district court of harassment, for having violated a restraining order. He was given a suspended sentence to confinement for 90 days and placed on probation for two years. For this he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and vacation of his NCO status. d. On 13 Dec 88, the applicant received an LOR for having received two traffic citations from Security Police. On 20 Dec 88 the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and requested a conditional waiver of his rights to an administrative discharge board hearing in exchange for no less than a General discharge. On or about 15 Feb 89 (illegible date stamp), the discharge was found legally sufficient. On 27 Feb 89 the applicant was furnished a general discharge (under honorable conditions), for Misconduct – Pattern discreditable involvement with Military or Civilian authorities and was credited with 2 years, 3 months, and 26 days of active service. On 28 Jul 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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-2014-01011 in Executive Session on 18 Dec 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01011 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.