RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03064 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Rehabilitation was recommended, but was denied by the discharge authority. If he was given this chance, he could have cleared his name and earned an honorable discharge. He joined the service willingly and made a mistake at a young age. Since leaving the Air Force, he has sustained good conduct with all authorities. He served his obligation for the crime he committed in the Air Force; since his release he has maintained legal integrity. In support of his request, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s administrative discharge package is not located in his master personnel records. Attempts to obtain a copy of his discharge package have been unsuccessful. Therefore, the circumstances and facts surrounding his discharge are not available. On 7 May 71, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class. He received two Airman Performance Reports (APRs) with overall ratings of 6 and 3, respectively. On 24 Oct 72, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 26 Dec 72, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL). On 3 Feb 73, the applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities and charged with aggravated robbery and was placed in confinement in the county jail. On 15 Aug 73, he was discharged in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Unfitness or Misconduct; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, for Misconduct – Civil Court Disposition, and received a UOTHC discharge. He served on active duty for 1 year, 8 months, and 19 days. On 18 Oct 11, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. At the same time, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ 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. Upon reviewing the evidence presented in this case, we are not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s discharge package was not available for review; however, under the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs we must assume the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. 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 in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-03064 in Executive Session on 5 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation, dated 4 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 18 Oct 11.