RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01509 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: Include foreign-service time for service in Thailand; (administratively corrected) Upgrade his characterization of service from undesirable to honorable; and Change his rank from Airman Basic (AB) to Sergeant (Sgt). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In his last assignment, his first sergeant constantly harassed him such that he went home and did not return. While he was Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL), he was promoted to sergeant. He went AWOL a second time and was eventually court- martialed for his actions. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely request because he couldn’t find his paperwork until after his mother’s death in 2013. When the paperwork was found, he discovered the incorrect information and now requests it be corrected. In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, performance records, award certificates, court- martial documents as well as comments from supervisors and superiors. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Jul 69, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 23 Nov 71, he received notification his commander proposed Article 15, UCMJ disciplinary punishment for being AWOL on 5 Nov 71 in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. He acknowledged receipt the same day indicating he did not demand a trial by court- martial and was not submitting any statements on his own behalf. He was reduced in grade to Airman First Class (A1C) (suspended until 15 May 72) and ordered to forfeit $50.00 per month for two months. He acknowledged the punishment in writing stating he did not intend to appeal. On 30 Nov 71, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the proposed action correct and legally sufficient. On 22 Feb 72, his squadron commander vacated the suspension of his reduction in grade to A1C for failing to go to his place of duty on or about 1 Feb 72, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. He acknowledged receipt indicating he did not desire a personal hearing nor was he submitting a written statement on his behalf. According to Special Court-Martial Order No. 16, dated 17 May 72, he was found guilty of being AWOL from 7 to 23 Apr 72, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. He was sentenced to reduction in grade to AB, forfeiture of $100.00 per month for three months and to be confined at hard labor for three months. On 4 Dec 72, the applicant submitted a request to his base commander for discharge for the good of the service pursuant to AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct Personal Abuse of Drugs, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, paragraph 2-78. According to a letter dated 6 Dec 72, the psychiatric evaluation indicated he had been diagnosed with character-behavior disorder, anti-social personality. On 7 Dec 72, the SJA disagreed with the immediate commander’s recommendation to approve issuing an undesirable discharge to the applicant. On 8 Dec 72, his support group commander requested the discharge, pursuant to AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct Personal Abuse of Drugs, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, paragraph 2-88, be disapproved and the applicant be court-martialed. On 12 Dec 72, the SJA recommended he be discharged with an undesirable characterization due to his first charged AWOL of 55 days, immediately followed by a 13 day AWOL and a past record of three other instances of being AWOL. On 15 Dec 72, the applicant received an undesirable discharge. He was credited with 3 years, 5 months and 5 days of active service. In a letter dated 20 May 14, AFPC/DPAPP advised the applicant they determined he had boots-on-the-ground in Thailand from 13 Aug 70 to 13 Aug 71, for one year and one day and that his records would be administratively corrected. They further advised the applicant that specific locations are not annotated on a member’s DD Form 214, so he could use their letter as proof of “boots-on-ground” in Thailand. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. There is nothing in the applicant’s records officially promoting him to the rank of Sgt. On 22 Nov 71, his commander recommended he be reduced in rank, without suspension, for being AWOL. He further stated the applicant had been promoted to sergeant while in AWOL status, but would not have been promoted if anything could have been done to preclude it. On 23 Nov 71, the demotion authority approved reduction in rank from Sgt to A1C, suspended until 15 May 72. On 22 Feb 72, the suspended reduction was vacated due to the applicant’s failure to go to his appointed place of duty. He was reduced to the rank of AB, suspended until 15 Aug 72. He was permanently reduced to the rank of AB by Special Court-Martial Order 16, dated 17 May 72. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He submitted a response stating he took pride in every job he was assigned but the last job was the worst assignment he had in the Air Force. Though he was drafted by the Army while in high school, he chose the Air Force so he could graduate. He was promoted while overseas but did not receive the certificate since it was approved just prior to his return stateside. It was after his return that the first sergeant was determined he never receive the promotion or the certificate. He admits he went AWOL and agreed to the court-martial but states that it was the lesser of two evils given the stress from the first sergeant. Since that time, he has worked for the State of South Carolina for almost 30 years. His superiors, other employees and the prisoners treated him with more respect than he received from the first sergeant. He further states that his work record while in the Air Force, other than that one assignment, was outstanding. He hopes the Board will reconsider his discharge rank and if deciding the rank should not be sergeant, at least return him back to the rank of airman first class which is the rank he achieved before the promotion to sergeant. The applicant’s complete response is at 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 an error or injustice. We note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. Rather, in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), actions by this Board are limited to corrections to the record to reflect actions taken by the reviewing officials and action on the sentence of the court-martial for the purpose of clemency. We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization and reduction in rank, which had its basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service, the court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses to which he was convicted. However, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Aside from the administrative corrections note above, we find no basis to grant the additional 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01509 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Jun 14 Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Aug 14.