RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00450
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He makes no contentions.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered into the Air Force on 28 May 1962.  On    17 May 1965, the applicant was notified by his commander, that he was recommending he be discharged, under the provisions of AFR 39-17, for unfitness.  The basis for the action was a 6 Mar 1964 general court martial, in which he was found guilty of forging a signature on a check.  He was reduced to E-1, confined at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $28 per month for six months.  A 12 March 1965 Special court-martial found the applicant guilty of wrongfully appropriating a tape recorder.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $30 per month for six months.  He also had two letters of indebtedness on 1 April 1965.  Applicant waived his rights to appear before a Board of Officers, to counsel and to submit statements.  

The applicant’s DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge is dated 8 September 1965 reflects a UOTHC.  He served two years,     four months and ten days on active duty.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 9 July 1981.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

In accordance with AFM 35-5 (Separation Processing), Table 13, Item 3a, (dated 25 Jan 65) there was no “Undesirable” character of service authorized.  Therefore, his characterization of service is correct (Under Conditions Other That Honorable).  See DD Dorm 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, dated 8 September 1965.  

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant changing his UOTHC discharge to honorable.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service and the events which precipitated the discharge.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  Applicant has not provided sufficient information of post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that applicant has overcome the behavioral traits, which caused the discharge.  Should applicant provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to applicant's good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2003-00450 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.

	
	Panel Chair