RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01760 

						COUNSEL:  NONE
		
						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is trying to get his discharge upgraded.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 February 1969.  

On 9 March 1972, the applicant’s commander initiated action for an undesirable discharge from the Air Force.  The reasons for the proposed action included his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  

On 21 April 1972, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge for unfitness.  

On 27 April 1972, the applicant was furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) Discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 2 months, and 25 days of active service.  

On 6 March 2017, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and 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 an 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 lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offense 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 post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s 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 relief sought.  

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-2016-01760 in Executive Session on 3 August 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01760 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 July 2016.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 March 2017, 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.