RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01839 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge is a result of three Article 15s he received. He was told he could try to get his discharge upgraded in six months. He has been married for 51 years and tried to live a good life. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because he has lived a good life and has been married for 51 years. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 January 1956, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On or about 2 October 1956, the applicant wrongfully and maliciously poured beer on a bust of a national monument of the Republic of Turkey, causing insult to the Republic of Turkey, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was found guilty at a Summary-Court Martial and was punished with a $35.00 fine. On 26 March 1957, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order to stay in his barracks until it was time for him to go on duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. He was found guilty at a Summary-Court Martial and was punished with a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and a forfeiture of $20.00. On 10 April 1957, the applicant failed to go to his official place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ and disobeyed a lawful order to get dressed and ready for duty, in violation of Article 92. He was found guilty at a Summary-Court Martial and was confined at hard labor for 30 days. In a letter dated 15 April 1957, a psychiatrist determined the applicant was diagnosed with “Emotional Instability Reaction, Acute, Mild. The psychiatrist further concluded there were no psychiatric centra-indications to any proposed administrative or legal action. In April 1957, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness. On 23 April 1957, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and that legal counsel had made available to him. He waived his right to a discharge board. On 10 May 1957, the commander approved the applicant’s discharge. On 13 May 1957, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 7 June 1957, he received a UOTHC discharge. He served on active duty for one year, four months and two days. On 4 May 2014, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C), as of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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. 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, 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 is sufficient to warrant upgrading his discharge on that basis. Should he provide documentation pertaining to his post- service accomplishments and activities, this Board would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration of his request based on clemency. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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 issue(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 12 March 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014- 01839 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 April 2014. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Information Bulletin, 4 May 2014.