RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2015-02056
		
						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his discharge upgraded so that upon his death, his grave can be marked with an American flag.  He admits he was not the best Airman, but is proud of his service and would like to say he served honorably.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 May 57.

On 9 Aug 60, the applicant’s commander notified him that his discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge for Airmen Because of Unfitness, was under consideration.  The reasons for the action included the applicant’s frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  The reasons for the action included the following:

a.  Article 15, 8 Oct 58, Violation of Article 86, failure to repair, 7 Oct 58, reduced to the grade of Airman Basic (AB).

b.  Summary Court-Martial, 18 Dec 58, Violation of Articles 86 and 134, failure to repair and disorderly in station. Confined to hard labor for 20 days and forfeited $45.00.

c.  Article 15, 18 Feb 60, Violation of Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order 16 Feb 60, 14 days extra duty, 2 hours per day.

d.  Article 15, 15 Jul 60, Violation of Article 86, failure to repair 14 Jul 60, 14 days extra duty, 2 hours per day.

e.  Summary Court-Martial 27 Jul 60, Violation of Article 86, failure to repair 12 Jul 60, 18 Jul 60, and 21 Jul 60, confined to hard labor for 30 days and reduced to the grade of AB.

On 9 Aug 60, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and of his rights to consult with military legal counsel, to have his case heard before a board of at least three officers, to appear before such a board, and to submit statements on his own behalf.  The applicant waived these rights and acknowledged that he could be issued an Undesireable discharge, which could result in him being deprived of many or all rights as a veteran.

On 1 Sep 60, the discharge authority approved the action as proposed and directed the applicant be furnished an undesireable discharge for unfitness.

On 6 Sep 60, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 3 years, 1 month, and 26 days of total active service and 43 days of lost time.

On 28 Sep 16, a request for post-service information was forwarded along with Clemency guidelines to the applicant for review and submission.  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.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  Based on the evidence before us, it appears the applicant’s UOTHC discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the applicant did not submit supporting documentation concerning his post-service activities to determine if his 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 requested relief.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-02056 in Executive Session on 5 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02056 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 15.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 16 w/atch.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.