RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00322 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: All draft dodgers were given amnesty by the President and allowed to return to the United States. He does not believe this is fair since he served and did not run from the draft. In support of the his request, the applicant provides a copy of 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: On 4 Sep 1970, the applicant entered active duty. On 9 Dec 1971, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was initiating administrative discharge action against him. The specific reasons for his action were the applicant’s demonstrated apathy and defective attitude. On 9 Dec 1971, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter, On 13 Dec 1971, the applicant acknowledged that he had been afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf and did not desire to submit a rebuttal. On 16 Dec 1971, the staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 20 Dec 1971, the discharge authority approved a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 21 Dec 1971, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). On 20 Sep 2013, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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. 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, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the numerous infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and 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 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-2013-00322 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Sep 13, w/atch. 1 2