RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01620
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to 
honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the nature of the discharge it should be upgraded.  He was 
under the impression that after three to five years it would be 
changed to honorable.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Mar 90, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force on 30 Mar 90.

On 6 Feb 92, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing 
to ensure a safe was locked. 

On 5 Mar 92, he received an LOC for being late to work.  

On 26 May 92, he received an LOC for failing to pay his rent on 
time.  

On 5 Nov 92, he received an Article 15 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
failing to pay his rent, a direct violation of Article 134 of the 
UCMJ.  He also received an LOR for disobeying his first sergeant’s 
order to pay the rent on the first day of every month, a direct 
violation of Article 91 of the UCMJ.  He acknowledged receipt and 
on 9 Nov 1992 submitted a statement indicating his intent to have 
the rent directly paid via a cashier’s check directly sent from 
his financial institution.

On 13 Nov 92 he was notified of and acknowledged his commander’s 
intent to separate him from the Air Force for minor disciplinary 
infractions.

On 16 Nov 92 his group commander initiated a discharge action for 
minor disciplinary infractions pursuant to AFR 39-10, Airmen 
Separation Manual, paragraph 5-46.  

On 18 Nov 92, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the case 
legally sufficient and recommended that the separation authority 
approve the applicant’s discharge under the authority of AFR 39-
10, paragraph 5-46 without probation or rehabilitation.  

On 25 Nov 92, the applicant received a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 7 months, 
and 26 days of active service.  

On 26 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.


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-2014-01620 in Executive Session on under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin, not dated. 
	
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
3