RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00277 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was young when he joined the Air Force and knew it was the right place for him. He was caught playing a joke on government equipment and was court-martialed and sent to Japan. He does realize he was wrong and he is not the same person now. He has some health issues and would like to apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 August 1951. On 25 September 1953, the applicant was tried by special court- martial on the charge of absenting himself from his organization from on or about 13 July 1953 to 25 August 1953, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He pled guilty and was found guilty. The applicant was sentenced by a military judge to hard labor without confinement for 45 days and forfeiture of $30.00 of his pay. On 28 May 1954, the applicant was tried by special court-martial on the charge of wrongfully and unlawfully making two prints in the likeness of a United States Silver Certificate in the denomination of five dollars in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. He pled not guilty and was found guilty. The applicant was sentenced by a military judge to reduction to the grade of Airman Basic, confinement at hard labor for six months, and forfeiture of $25.00 per month for a like period. On 26 October 1956, the applicant was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, and was credited with 4 years, 9 months, and 27 days of active service, excluding lost time of 128 days from 13 July 1953 to 25 August 1953 and 10 June 1954 to 1 September 1954. A copy of the applicant’s administrative discharge package is not available; therefore, the circumstances surrounding his discharge could not be verified. On 28 April 2014, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. The applicant’s records do not include a copy of the administrative discharge package; however, based on the presumption of regularity in government affairs, absent evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the administrative discharge was carried out in accordance the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time 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 regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post- service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2014-00277 in Executive Session on 2 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, 28 Apr 14.