RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02411 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Undesirable is not dishonorable. He deserves to go before the Board. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the United States Armed Forces of the United States, correspondence from the Department of Veterans Affairs and his DD form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 January 1951. By application, the applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent to discharge him, the option to have his case heard before a board of officers, his right to counsel and the right to submit statements and call witness on his behalf. He waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board. He was discharged on 12 June 1954. On 1 August 1961, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge from undesirable to honorable. The applicant responded to a request for post-service information and stated that he now has Alzheimer’s disease and cannot remember why he received an undesirable discharge. He also informs the Board that he has been an active member of the church and has worked since his separation. He has been married and divorced and now lives with his son and his wife. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. Examiner’s Note: The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17A (unfitness) (extract copy of applicable portion attached as Exhibit E). Nor has he shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, AFR 39- 17A, paragraph 8, stated that when discharged because of unfitness, an Undesirable Discharge (UD) will be furnished. However, in 1959, AFR 39-17 was changed to state that when an airman discharged under this regulation should be furnished an undesirable discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a given case warrants a general or honorable discharge. Criteria for the issuance of an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge is outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See Exhibit F). Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined. Attached at Exhibit G is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of characterization of service and how standards have changed since 1959. ________________________________________________________________ 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 applicant’s discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we found the evidence submitted insufficient to compel us to recommend granting the request 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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02411 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Jan 13. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs. Exhibit E. AFR 39-17A, Enlisted Personnel. Exhibit F. AFR 39-10 Excerpt. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor Opinion.