RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01291

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made some mistakes while he was younger but does not want to 
live with this record for the rest of his life.  He is under the 
impression his under honorable conditions (general) discharge 
should have automatically upgraded to honorable six months after 
he was discharged.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Aug 88, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force.

On 12 Dec 89, 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 
included six instances of failure to go or be at his regular 
place of duty at the designated time, for which he received 
verbal and written counseling; two motor vehicle violations, for 
which he received verbal counseling and a letter of reprimand; 
two instances of writing checks against an account with 
insufficient funds, for which he received verbal counseling and 
was issued a “no check cashing privileges” identification card.  
He was also placed on a Control Roster for uttering checks on a 
closed bank account, reporting late for work multiple times, and 
failing to meet on the job responsibilities.

On 15 Dec 89, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and submitted statements on his own 
behalf, requesting an honorable discharge.
On 3 Jan 90, the discharge was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority subsequently concurred with the commander’s 
recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished an under 
honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 9 Jan 90, the applicant was furnished an under honorable 
conditions (general) discharge for misconduct-pattern conduct 
prejudicial to good order and discipline, and was credited with 
one year, four months, and nine 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 in this application.


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-2014-01291 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.