RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03428

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He went drinking and got drunk and was later awakened by an airman performing fellatio on him.  He knocked him off and threaten to kill him.  Subsequently, he was questioned by two Air Force investigators and later issued a discharge and a bus ticket home.  His documents have since been destroyed by fire. 

He worked with Piedmont Airlines for 41 years and 5 months, retiring in May 2005.  He turned down several promotions because he was scared that his discharge would catch up with him.  In addition, he waited so long for the submission of his application because he was afraid of his employer finding out and he would be out of a job.

He did not deserve an undesirable discharge but was unaware of what he could do about it.  He has lived with this so long and would like to have peace of mind.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 August 1959.  

On 17 April 1962, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for his apprehension by the Texas City police for consuming alcoholic beverages as a minor in violation of Articles 134, UCMJ. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to trial by court-martial and elected not to submit matters on his behalf.  

On 7 May 1962, the commander found the applicant committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment of reduction to the grade of airman third class.  

On 17 May 1962, the non-judicial punishment action was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.  

On 8 August 1962, the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial of one charge and two specifications of failure to go, all in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He was sentenced to 30 days restriction to base, forfeiture of $25.00, and reduction to the grade of airman basic.  

On 5 October 1962, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, and was credited with three years and two months of active service.  

On 8 February 2016, a request for post-service information was forwarded to applicant for 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 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 process.  Although the applicant contends he received an undesirable discharge, his DD Form 214 reflects his service was characterized as under other than honorable (UOTHC).  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 activities since leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s UOTHC discharge.  

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-2015-03428 in Executive Session on 3 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 August 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 February 2016, w/atch.