RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01635 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Other than Honorable discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge, the only misconduct was 19 days of AWOL; however, he turned himself in without incident.	His mom had	passed	away	just	prior	to	entering	the		Air	Force		and returned	home	to		tend	to	issues	with	his		family.			He acknowledges this behavior was inappropriate; however, compared to draft dodgers from the Viet Nam era that were pardoned by President Jimmy Carter, he believes his discharge was too harsh. In the 43 years since his discharge, he has been employed as a civil servant for 9 years, owned several business, served as CFO for	Wounded		Warrior		Families	 Soldiers		earned	a		 license	as	 a Minister and has been inducted Into the Alabama Music Hall Of Fame.	He has petitioned a member of Congress on his behalf.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 Oct 71, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 6 Oct 72, the applicant was notified of pending discharge actions. The reasons for action included: four (4) renderings of Article 15 (one for AWOL, three for failure to repair). The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification the same day.

On 25 Oct 72, a request for discharge was initiated under AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, for frequent incidents of discreditable nature with military authorities as indicated by the four renderings of Article 15.

On 30 Oct 72, the applicant acknowledged the notification, acknowledged his right to counsel, and waived his right to submit statements on his own behalf.

On 1 Nov 72, the discharge was found legally sufficient and a general discharge was recommended.

On 22 Nov 72, the discharge authority approved an Undesirable Discharge.

On 24 Nov 72, the applicant was furnished an  other-than honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with one year, one month, and ten days of active service.

On 15 Oct 86, The Discharge Review Board (DRB) considered his case for upgrade and denied his request. The DRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In response to a request for post-service information, the applicant provides two character references and  four certificates of appreciation and/or achievement from various organizations in his community (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 took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, 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, 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.  Therefore, in the
1.	

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-2015-01635 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 15.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jan 16, w/atchs.