RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03982

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was uneducated about the consequences of his bad financial 
decisions.  He got into debt while trying to take care of his 
wife and family.  His career in public service is at risk 
because of the type of discharge he received.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
9 Nov 89.

On 6 Nov 91, the applicant’s commander recommended his discharge 
for Misconduct – pattern dishonorable failure to pay just debts, 
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, para 5-47.  The reasons for the action included 
financial irresponsibility and failure to pay debts, for which 
he received several letters of counseling, letters of reprimand 
and an Article 15 dated, 26 Aug 91.

On 13 Nov 91, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to 
submit statements on his own behalf.

On 16 Nov 91, the recommendation for discharge was found legally 
sufficient and, on 21 Nov 91, the discharge authority directed 
the applicant be discharged.

On 2 Dec 91, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 2 years 
and 24 days of active service.   
On 27 Feb 95, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded to 
Honorable.  On 6 Sep 96, the AFDRB denied his request, 
concluding that his discharge was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority and he was 
provided full administrative due process.

On 30 Sep 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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. 

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-2014-03982 in Executive Session on 18 Jun 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 14.