RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02967 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His record should be corrected for the purpose of closure and national health. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a letter of appreciation and an assignment order. 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 served on active duty from 28 September 1960 to 16 March 1962. On 30 January 1961, the applicant, while serving in the grade of airman third class (E-2), was found guilty by a summary court- martial of wrongfully damaging, by striking with a hatchet, an automobile belonging to another airman in violation of Article 109, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He received punishment consisting of forfeiture of $50 pay for one month. On 31 May 1961, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for failure to obey a lawful regulation. His punishment consisted of two hours extra duty per day for 14 days. On 11 July 1961, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for being a minor possessing alcohol in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1). On 6 October 1961, the applicant was found guilty by special court-martial for two specifications of theft in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. He received punishment consisting of three months of hard labor and forfeiture of $55.46 pay per month for three months. On 22 November 1961, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend the applicant for an undesirable discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-17, paragraphs 4a and 4d. The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intent, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. After considering the applicant’s submission and a legal review finding the case to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an undesirable characterization of service. The applicant was discharged from active duty effective 16 March 1962 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He served 1 year, 2 months, and 27 days on active duty. He had 82 days of lost time due to confinement. On 29 July 1975, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his characterization of discharge to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report (Exhibit C). On 11 October 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities and in response to the FBI Report (Exhibit D). The applicant responded by providing two character references. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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, 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 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-2011-02967 in Executive Session on 27 March 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02967: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Report. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Oct 11, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Nov 11, w/atchs.