RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04525 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from General, (Under Honorable Conditions), to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. Until August 1974 his job as a security forces specialist was going very well. He moved off-base and shared a trailer with two other airmen. Unknown to him at that time, one of his roommates belonged to a group who were involved in some local armed robberies. 2. He was questioned about the robberies by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI), was totally cleared, and went about his duties as usual. Shortly thereafter, he received threats on his life. Because he had little to no support from his leadership, he left the base on 14 August 1974 and was absent without leave until he returned under protective custody in December 1974. He was offered the option to cross-train and transfer to Denver or receive discharge in lieu of a court martial. He was discharged with the stipulation that he never return to the base or the local area. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. According to documents extracted from his military personnel record, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 October 1973. 2. On 16 December 1974, charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 August 1974 through 13 September 1974, and a deserter from 14 September 1974 through 5 December 1974. On 30 December 1974, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, submitted a letter of request for discharge under the provisions of AFM 39- 12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, September 1, 1966, paragraph 2- 78 for the good of the service. In the letter, the applicant confirmed that he understood that this type of discharge, if approved, may result in his receiving an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, regardless of the recommendation of the commander. In which event, he would not be entitled to settlement of accrued leave, may be deprived of veteran’s benefits, and may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations where the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing. 3. On 6 January 1975, the applicant’s commander recommended the request for discharge be approved and the applicant be furnished a general discharge. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the request for discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with a General Discharge Certificate, DD Form 257AF, without probation or rehabilitation. The applicant was released from active duty on 31 January 1975, and credited with 11 months and 23 days of active duty service. 4. On 5 March 1980, the applicant submitted an appeal for upgrade of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). The applicant was offered and accepted a personal appearance, with counsel, before the AFDRB scheduled for 19 March 1981, but failed to appear without requesting a postponement. The Board reviewed the case and found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The Board could find no basis for an upgrade. The applicant’s military service was totally unproductive and the only matter of record which warranted remark was the extensive AWOL. The applicant’s service was, in the opinion of the Board, undesirable. The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge should not be changed. On 4 June 1981, the applicant was advised that since his case was denied by the AFDRB he had the right to appeal to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). 5. On 2 April 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments regarding his post service activities (Exhibit C). 6. In an undated letter of response (Exhibit D), the applicant states that since he left the Air Force he has been gainfully employed. He spent time working as an undercover transportation observer, traveling on public and private buses, subway trains, and even trolley cars, observing the operators for misconduct. He is currently employed as an assistant teacher for special needs children. He has been a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the American Legion. The applicant reiterated that because of the attempts on his life and the lack of support from his leadership he left the base. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ 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 during the discharge process. 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, or unduly harsh. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted 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. 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(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 6 June 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04525 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 24 September 2012 w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 April 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, not dated. Dear: Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04525. After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice. Accordingly, the Board denied your application. You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board. In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not possible. BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR Attachment: Record of Board Proceedings DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary