RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02855 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Pertinent issues pertaining to his case were never addressed; he has no convictions, and there was just an agreement offered with prejudice without counsel. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Army on 30 Apr 70. On 10 Jun 70, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for unsuitability and was credited with 1 month and 11 days of total active service. On 24 Aug 70, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 22 Oct 71, summary court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of assault, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 6 Nov 71, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of court- martial for the good of the service. On 17 Nov 71, the request for discharge was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient and, on 1 Dec 71, was approved by the Numbered Air Force (NAF) Commander. On 9 Dec 71, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 16 days of total active service. On 1 Jun 77, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) approved the applicant’s request to upgrade his UOTHC discharge to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, indicating abuse of alcohol may have contributed to the applicant’s misconduct. The Board concluded the evidence presented was sufficiently credible enough to substantiate upgrading the discharge to a general discharge; however, his misconduct and substandard performance did not warrant an Honorable discharge. On 18 Sep 78, the AFDRB denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general 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 during the applicant’s brief period of service, he made little contribution to his unit’s mission and his performance was deemed unsatisfactory and did not warrant upgrading the discharge. On 27 Feb 14, 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded that corrective action is warranted. While the Air Force Discharge Review Board was compelled to upgrade the applicant’s under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to general (under honorable conditions) discharge, we find no basis to recommend a further upgrade of the applicant’s discharge characterization to fully honorable. In this respect, we note that this Board, in the interest of justice, can recommend the upgrade of a discharge based on clemency when an applicant has brought forth evidence of personal contributions to society since his or her discharge that are so substantial that they overcome the misconduct for which he or she was discharged. However, having no such showing in this case, 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-2013-02855 in Executive Session on 27 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Feb 14, w/atch. 1 2