RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00915 HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was young and admits he made a bad mistake. Since that time, he has tried to make up for it. He has not gotten into any trouble since his discharge. He would like his discharge upgraded before he dies. In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and two character references. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________ ______________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 Feb 61, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 30 Sep 64, the applicant was tried and convicted by a general court-martial for stealing an engine. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), 12 months confinement, forfeiture of $76.00 per month for 12 months, and reduction in rank to airman basic. On 12 Nov 64, the convening authority approved the findings ad sentence for a BCD, forfeiture of $48.00 per month for 12 months, confinement for 12 months, and reduction to the rank of airman basic (E-1). On 25 Nov 64, the Board of Review approved and affirmed the findings and sentence. On 18 Dec 64, the convening authority ordered the execution of the BCD and remitted the remaining confinement for the applicant as of 24 Dec 64. On 24 Dec 64, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 22 days of active service. On 18 Nov 13, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit E). In response, the applicant indicates that he has been productive member of society since his discharge. He continued to work in the automotive industry and eventually opened his own business for 37 years. He does not drink alcohol or smoke and has not been in any trouble. In 2008, he became a civilian employee with the Government until his retirement in August in 2013. Along with his response, the applicant provided his request for an FBI report, autobiography, resume, documents extracted from his military and civilian records, his father’s military separation documents, previously submitted character statements. The Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA JAJM recommends granting the requested relief. The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge and has not identified any error or injustice in the processing of his court-martial. In reviewing the applicant’s record, he was described as the "most remorseful person," and his commander, former commander, first sergeant, and confinement officer all recommended rehabilitation and retraining. Furthermore, no one had anything bad to say about the applicant, and based on the his hard work ethic and can do attitude, his confinement was cut in half with the remaining six months of his confinement remitted. While a BCD did characterize his actions at that time in 1964, he has shown, through the work he did while he was in the Air Force and since that time that the punishment has made an impact on his life. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 May 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 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 was 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 regulations, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offense committed. 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 for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time. While the Board notes the recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM to grant relief, Congress’ intent in setting up the Veterans Benefits Program was to express thanks for Veterans’ personal sacrifice, separations from family, facing hostile enemy action, and suffering financial hardship. It would be unfair to all those who served honorably to extend those Veterans benefits to someone who committed crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty. For these reasons, this Board very carefully weighs requests to upgrade the character of a discharge and, in doing so, carefully considers whether the impact of an applicant’s contributions to his or her community are substantial enough for us to conclude they overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Furthermore, we also very carefully considered whether or not an upgrade of the discharge would create a larger injustice to those who served under honorable conditions and earned the characterization of service the applicant seeks. While the applicant has presented supporting statements indicating he has apparently made a successful post-service transition, we do not find the documentation provided sufficient to conclude we should upgrade his discharge at this time. In this respect, we note that while the applicant has provided some supporting statements, these statements do not give us any sense of the degree of the impact of his presence in the community and if he impact is so meritorious that we could conclude an upgrade of his discharge would not constitute an injustice to those who have earned this characterization of service. While we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to grant the requested relief at this time, the applicant retains the right to request reconsideration of this decision if he provides new evidence. Said evidence could be in the form of statements from community leaders specifically describing how his efforts in the community have positively impacted others. We also note the applicant has requested a copy of an arrest record from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and such a report would also be instrumental in our ability to determine if the applicant’s post-service accomplishments are sufficient to warrant an upgrade his discharge. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-00915 in Executive Session on 19 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Apr 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Nov 13, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 13, w/atchs. 1 2