RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05129

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He recently learned that he can qualify for some benefits if his 
discharge is upgraded.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
11 Mar 63.

On 7 Mar 66, court-martial charges were preferred against the 
applicant.

On 6 May 66, the following charges were referred to trial by 
general court-martial:

	a.  Five violations of Article 123a, Making, drawing, or 
uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds.

	b.  Ten violations of Article 133, Conduct unbecoming an 
officer and a gentleman.

	c.  Two violations of Article 134, general article.

On 26 May 66, the applicant tendered his resignation for the 
good of the service in accordance with AFR 36-12, Administrative 
Separation of Commissioned Officers. 

On 29 Jun 66, the applicant’s resignation was accepted.

On 13 Jul 66, the applicant was furnished an under other than 
honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with three 
years, four months, and three days of active service.   

On 13 Jan 15, 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.  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 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-2014-05129 in Executive Session on 13 Aug 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-05129 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 15.
1 2