RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02594
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 FEB 09

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and immature during the contested time period.  His mother was extremely ill and he needed to be home to take care of her. Unfortunately, she later died.  He believes that if this incident happened today, the Air Force would understand and would allow him to finish his tour of duty.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement and character references.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 September 1969 in the grade of airman basic.  He served as a Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Specialist.

On 29 June 1972, applicant was tried by special court-martial for being absent from his organization from 25 February 1972 until 18 June 1972.  He was found guilty and sentenced to hard labor for five months, a forfeiture of $191.00 per month for five months and a reduction in grade from airman first class to airman basic.  After serving 37 days confinement, a recommendation was made and approved that the remaining portion of the confinement sentence be suspended.
On 7 December 1972, applicant was absent without authority from his organization until 9 January 1973.

On 24 January 1973, applicant submitted a request for discharge under AFM 39-12, section F, paragraph 2-78, Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service.

In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient.  The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed applicant be discharged.  Applicant was discharged on 9 March 1973.  He served 3 years, 1 month and 25 days on active duty.

Applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the U.S. Report of Transfer or Discharge, reflects numerous periods of time lost.  

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, were unable to identify with an arrest record on the basis of information furnished 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.  We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-2007-02594 in Executive Session on 30 October 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 July 2007.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative Federal Bureau of Investigation Report.