RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02949 INDEX CODE:	110.02
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He fell in love with a bar maid and married her. They had a daughter, whom the wife would leave at home and go to bars while he was at work. He had to leave the base to take care of his daughter when his wife left her, no matter what he was doing. He received calls from friends and from her family while he was restricted to the base.

He got into many fights over her. He never got into any trouble until he got married. He was young and had recently returned from a one-year tour in Korea.

He has seen on television and the newspaper that men from the military have left the U.S.A. to get out of the military and came back and their discharges were not as bad as his.

He has no other documentation other than the fact he has been working in aviation for over 50 years with the Navy and Air Force.  He is retired now.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 18 Jan 55 and was honorably discharged on 24 Jan 57 for Convenience of the Government to Reenlist. He reenlisted on 25 Jan 57 for a six (6) year period.

Records indicate the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 Aug to 13 Aug 57. He was found guilty by Summary Courts- Martial on 22 Aug 57. He was reduced to airman third class and ordered to forfeit $40. Records also indicate he received two Article 15’s, Record of Non-judicial Punishment, on 5 Feb 58 and

22 Dec 58, for failure to go. He was discharged on 16 Jan 59 with an undesirable (conditions other than honorable) discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stated they were unable to identify an arrest record based in the information furnished (Exhibit C). On 15 Dec 08, a request for post-service information with attachment and a memorandum prepared by the Air Force Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of characterization of service and how standards have changed since 1959 were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board majority finds 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 the Board majority 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, the Board majority does not find the evidence presented sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. However, if the applicant can provide additional post-service information the Board majority would be willing to reconsider the case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.

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- 2008-02949 in Executive Session on 25 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
By majority vote, the Board denied the applicant’s request. Mr. voted to grant the applicant’s request but declined to submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 08.
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Negative FBI Report.
Exhibit D.	AFBMCR Letter, dated 15 Dec 08, w/atchs Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, undated.