RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03941 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His wife was having problems and he felt that he had to take care 
of her. He states he wrote a letter to the Air Force explaining 
the situation and that he would return. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 December 
1966. 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFM 39-12. The specific reasons were as follows: 

 

 a. On three different occasions the applicant did between 
23 May 1967 and 4 August 1967 receive non-judicial punishment 
under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 
for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. 

 

 b. On or about 1 September 1967, the applicant did without 
proper authority absent himself from his organization and 
remained absent until 30 October 1967. For this misconduct he 
was tried and found guilty by a Special Court-Martial. 

 

 c. On or about 22 November 1967, the applicant did without 
proper authority absent himself from his organization and 
remained absent until 28 November 1967. For this misconduct he 
was tried and found guilty by a Special Court-Martial. 

 

 

 



He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected to 
present his case before an administrative discharge board and he 
also elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. The 
administrative discharge board recommended discharge without 
consideration for probation and rehabilitation. 

 

The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and 
directed the applicant be discharged. The applicant was 
discharged on 2 May 1968 with an under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He served 11 months and 22 days on 
active duty. His dates of time lost consisted of 1 September 
1967 to 29 October 1967 and 22 November 1967 to 18 February 1968. 

 

On 17 April 2013, a request for information pertaining to his 
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review 
and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this 
office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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 an 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03941 in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03941 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 August 2012. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 April 2013.