RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04136

			COUNSEL:  NO

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Undesirable discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to adverse weather, he spent six days in the hospital and 
his unit knew his whereabouts because he called Malcolm Grow 
Medical Center.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 26 Sep 66.

On 10 and 11 Feb 70, special court-martial charges were 
preferred against the applicant for two specifications of absent 
without leave; nine specifications of use, possession, and sale 
of marijuana; and two specifications of violating a lawful 
order; in violations of Articles 86, 134, and 92, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ), respectively.    

On 11 Feb 70, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of 
court-martial for the good of the service.  

On 4 Mar 70, the request for discharge was reviewed and 
determined to be legally sufficient and was subsequently 
approved by the Major Command (MAJCOM) Commander.

On 11 Mar 70, the applicant was furnished an Undesirable 
discharge and was credited with three years, four months, and 
eight days of total active service.

On 1 Nov 75, the President of the United States awarded the 
applicant clemency related to his absence offenses by granting 
him a full and unconditional pardon and a clemency discharge for 
having violated Article 86 of the UCMJ.

On 24 Oct 78, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his Undesirable 
discharge to an Honorable discharge indicating the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulations and was within the sound discretion of 
the discharge authority.  The Board concluded that there was no 
evidence presented to substantiate that the effects of 
prescribed drugs played a primary role in the applicant’s 
discharge, or that his testimony was sufficiently credible 
enough to substantiate upgrading the discharge.

On 15 Jul 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to applicant for comment within 30 days.  As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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 process.  Based on the available 
evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Undesirable 
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and within the commander’s 
discretionary authority.  He has provided no evidence which 
would lead us to believe the characterization of his service was 
improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
directive.  We note the applicant has provided a copy of a 
certificate that indicates that he was granted a Presidential 
pardon for his absence offenses; however, we also note that this 
pardon was granted to the applicant by virtue of a comprehensive 
program for the return of Vietnam era draft evaders and military 
deserters that also included a Presidential Clemency Board.  
While the applicant was granted clemency for his absence 
offenses under this program, his remaining drug related 
offenses, in and of themselves, could still have formed the 
basis for his Undesirable discharge.  Furthermore, the tenets of 
this program specifically preclude this form of clemency from 
being used as a basis to obtain benefits from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA).  Therefore, in view of these facts, we 
are not inclined to upgrade the applicant’s discharge on the 
basis of his receipt of a Presidential pardon, which is limited 
only to his absence offences, when doing so would bestow 
benefits to the applicant that are specifically precluded under 
the clemency program.  In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do 
not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to 
recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  In view of 
the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s 
Undesirable discharge.

________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04136 in Executive Session on 8 Aug 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		             , Panel Chair
		             , Member
		             , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jul 13, w/atch.