RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02415 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His fraudulent entry into the Air Force and concealment of his prior service in the United States Navy was not intentional. He disclosed his service when discussing advancement options with his commanding officer (CO). His CO gave him a chance to remain in the service at the same grade or be discharged from the Air Force to seek civilian options for increased wages. He was not advised he would be discharged under undesirable conditions. He respected his Air Force service and would not have left under these circumstances. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States; and, his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 2 October 1950 in the grade of private (E- 1) and was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2) with a date of rank of 1 May 1952. According to an Assistant Adjutant letter, dated 2 January 1953, the applicant disclosed that he had enlisted in the USN on 17 March 1948 until 24 January 1950; and, that upon reenlistment in the Air Force, he willfully concealed his prior service in the USN. USN records indicate the applicant enlisted in the Navy on 18 March 1948 and was given a general discharge on 24 January 1950 because of inaptitude. On 25 February 1953, discharge action was initiated with a recommendation that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. On 3 March 1953, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate indicated that if recruiting authorities had known about the applicant’s prior enlistment and his characterization of discharge from the USN, it would have made him ineligible for enlistment in the Air Force. On 4 March 1953, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged due to fraudulent enlistment and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate. On 13 March 1953, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the authority of Air Force Regulation 39-21, for fraudulent entry into the Air Force by concealment of prior service. He served 2 years, 5 months and 12 days on active duty in the Air Force. On 28 November 1956, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable stating his characterization of discharge was equitable and proper. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant. _________________________________________________________________ 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, 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. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02415 in Executive Session on 7 April 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02415: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jun 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.