RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01343 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to Honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was reduced to Airman Third Class for an offense he committed in 1958.  His records did not show any other findings from that point until his discharge.  He was under the assumption he was supposed to be released with an Honorable discharge.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Nov 56.

Special Court-Martial Order 12, dated 2 May 59, indicates the applicant pled guilty at Special Court-Martial, adjudged on 23 Apr 59, to having committed larceny, on 12 Jul 58.  He was reduced to Airman Third Class, and fined $50; however, the fine was later disapproved.

On 30 Sep 60, the applicant was furnished an General (Under Other than Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 10 months, and 1 day of active service, with 21 days lost time due to confinement.   

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.  

The sole issue raised by the applicant that would fall within the purview of this office is the legal sufficiency or error in any courts-martial action that precipitated his discharge.  In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), the BCMR has no authority to overturn a court-martial conviction, but may, on the basis of clemency, adjust the sentence.  We see no basis in law to suggest that applicant’s court-martial sentence is an injustice warranting correction by this Board.  Furthermore, as the applicant’s discharge action was administrative and not punitive, clemency in the form of an adjustment to applicant’s sentence would not provide the relief the applicant requests.  Instead, such relief would come in the form of an adjustment to his administrative discharge action, a subject which is best addressed by AFPC/JA.  

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

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

The applicant’s assertion that his records did not show any other findings is not accurate.  A review of his master personnel record reflects (in addition to his Special Court-Martial trial in Apr 59) the applicant was twice punished under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for misconduct.  On 27 Mar 60, he received nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to his duty station at Dover Air Force Base on 25 Mar 60, which resulted in his reduction to the grade of Airman Basic.  The applicant acknowledged, in writing, the nonjudicial punishment action and elected not to appeal the punishment.  Furthermore, on 27 May 60, the applicant was convicted at Summary Court-Martial for an 8 Dec 59 offense of wrongful appropriation in violation of Article 121, UCMJ.  The separation authority in the applicant’s case ultimately determined that a UOTHC discharge was appropriate.  The issuance of a UOTHC discharge is consistent with the criteria listed in the authorities in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, i.e., Air Force Regulation 39-17 and Air Force Regulation 39-10, Discharge – Expiration of Enlistment or Required Service and General Provisions, when compared to the applicant’s documented misconduct in his military record.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Feb 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  In response, he submitted an Identity History Summary from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which indicates arrest data at the FBI, for larceny, with an arrest date of 16 Apr 59 (which does not coincide with the 12 Jul 58 and 8 Dec 59 larceny charges identified in the applicant’s MPR) (see Exhibit F).

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  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-2016-01343 in Executive Session on 3 Aug 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01343 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 14 Sep 16.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 20 Nov 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Feb 17, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant Rebuttal, dated 18 Apr 17.

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.