RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04330 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged solely because he refused to reenlist. He received a separation code of “488” unsuitability. He did not receive any disciplinary actions or non-judicial punishment while he was in the military. He believes there is nothing in his records to support unsuitability for service, nor does it support any service characterization other than honorable. In support of his request, the applicant provides a cover letter and a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 6 Dec 55. The applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-17, para 4d. The specific reasons for this action were his showing no interest in his work, and for continually being late for duty and shirking his duties; for making little progress in his upgrade training and for failing a training course. The applicant elected to waive his right to an administrative discharge board hearing and waived his right to submit matters in his own behalf. The applicant was recommended for an undesirable discharge; however, on 1 Sep 59, he was discharged with a general (UHC). He served 3 years, 8 months, and 26 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of information furnished. Attached at Exhibit C is 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. _________________________________________________________________ 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 his 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 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 26 May 11, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.