RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01649 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told by his commanding officer that in the future he would be able to upgrade his discharge to a general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Jan 55. On 3 Feb 58, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for “unfitness,” under the provisions of AFR 39-17. The reasons for this action included two Article 15’s, dated 31 Oct 56 and 9 Feb 57, for violation of Wing regulation 125-15, titled Passes and Curfew; an Article 15, dated 2 Oct 57, for provoked speech and gestures; an Article 15, dated 31 Oct 57, for fighting in the street and drinking under the age of twenty-one; Summary Court Martial, dated 2 Mar 57, for drunk and disorderly; Summary Court Martial, dated 21 Apr 57, for being disorderly in quarters; Summary Court Martial, dated 8 Feb 58, was restricted to limits of base and broke restriction. On 3 Feb 58, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to consult with legal counsel, appear before an administrative board, or to submit statements on his own behalf. On 11 Mar 58, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 21 days of active service, excluding lost time from 23 Apr 57 to 23 May 57, 14 Feb 58 to 3 Mar 58, and 9 Jan 58 to 2 Febr 58. On 25 Nov 58, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application. They concluded the discharge was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of his case and there was insufficient basis to warrant clemency for a change in the discharge (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. In response, the applicant provided a two character references and a copy of his FBI Report (Exhibits C, D, and E). 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, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities 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-2014-01649 in Executive Session on 18 Dec 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Representative, dated Response from Applicant. Exhibit E. FBI Report.