RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04530

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ankle troubles are service connected and he needs a discharge upgrade in order to receive Department of Veterans Affairs care.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 15 Nov 72.

On 30 Jan 74, the applicant was convicted by special court martial for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 25 Mar 73 to 1 May 73 and from 2 May 73 to 12 Nov 73, and sentenced to hard labor for six months.

On 4 Nov 74, the applicant was convicted by special court martial for being AWOL from 1 Apr 74 to 10 Jul 74, and sentenced to hard labor for five months and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for five months.

On 29 Aug 75, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to impose non-judicial punishment in violation of the Uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, for twice failing to go to the applicant’s place of duty.  

On 3 Sep 75 and 1 Oct 75, the applicant sprained his ankle.  

On 4 Sep 75, the applicant did not appeal and his’s rank was reduced to Airman Basic.  

On 10 Sep 75, the case was found to be legally sufficient.  

On 7 Oct 75, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to impose non-judicial punishment in violation of the Uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, for failing to go to the applicant’s place of duty.  

On 14 Oct 75, the applicant did not appeal and on 16 Oct 75 was ordered to forfeit $50.00 of his pay.  

On 17 Oct 75, the case was found to be legally sufficient.  

On 30 Dec 75, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with eight months and four days of active service.  

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Feb 16 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, based on the evidence before us, the Board finds no basis to grant clemency at this time.  However, the Board would be willing to reconsider his appeal should he provide new and relevant information relative to his claim.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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-2015-04530 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Feb 16.

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.