RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04688

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded (presumed).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He went absent without leave (AWOL) because the Red Cross would not assist him in getting emergency leave when he found out that his mother had been hospitalized due to heart problems.  He turned himself in to military authorities when her condition improved and he would not have been compelled to go AWOL if the Red Cross had done its job.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 31 Dec 62.

On 13 May 66 at a Special Court-Martial, the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of being AWOL from 14 Dec 65 through 22 Apr 66.  He was sentenced to four months confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of $56.00 pay per month for four months, and a BCD.

On 31 May 66, the Convening Authority disapproved the findings and sentence based on the failure of the applicant’s defense counsel to raise matters in extenuation and mitigation at trial.  

On 3 Jun 66, a rehearing was held during which the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of the same offense and was given the same sentence.

On 29 Jun 66, the convening authority approved the findings and adjudged sentence of the court-martial (rehearing), and with the exception of the bad conduct discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

On 13 Sep 66, the record of trial was forwarded to the Air Force’s criminal appeals court for review.  All cases resulting in dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad conduct discharge must be reviewed by the appellate court for legal sufficiency before final action can be taken on the case.  Subsequently, the bad conduct discharge was ordered executed.

On 16 Sep 96, the applicant was furnished a BCD, and was credited with 2 years, 8 months, and 24 days of active service.   

On 7 Apr 16, a request for post-service documentation was forwarded with Clemency guidelines to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit E)

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice that tends to undermine the sentence adjudged at court-martial and approved on appeal.  It was with a full picture of the applicant’s duty history, the aggravating circumstances of the crime, and any extenuation/mitigation evidence provided by the applicant that the court-martial fashioned an appropriate sentence.  The applicant’s punishment was within the permissible punishments prescribed for the offenses to which he pled guilty.  The applicant has not submitted any new evidence or information which tends to cast doubt on the outcome of his trial.

The applicant contends he went AWOL because the Red Cross did not assist him in obtaining emergency leave.  However, based on information he provided during a post-trial interview on 20 May 66, he apparently is referring to an AWOL incident distinct from the one for which he was court-martialed.  He had a previous AWOL incident, from 2 to 30 Jul 65, when he left to be with his mother and for which he received nonjudicial punishment.  He was facing administrative discharge for that AWOL incident, and other misconduct, when he went AWOL from 14 Dec 65 through 22 Apr 66, the AWOL period for which he was court-martialed.  

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Jun 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 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 BCD 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.

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-2015-04688 in Executive Session on 24 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04688 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 15.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jun 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.