RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02230 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His mother’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His mother received an undesirable discharge based on the fact that she was pregnant. At the time of her separation, she was unwed and pregnant. She later married the baby’s father who was an Air Force serviceman. If this happened today, the service member would be able to continue service or be granted a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The nature of his mother’s service was honorable. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of his mother’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States; copies of her training records; and Power of Attorney documents. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The service member enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 July 1952. She was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2) with a date of rank of 22 August 1952. On 3 July 1953, the service member received Article 15 punishment for failure to report for Charge of Quarters Duty in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 21 July 1953, the service member received summary court-martial punishment for breaking building restriction in violation of Article 143, UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of reduction in rank to airman basic (E-1), restriction to the confines of the installation for 60 days, and forfeiture of $55 pay. On 10 August 1953, the service member received special court-martial punishment for stealing a billfold and contents of some value less than $20, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for two months and forfeiture of $30 pay per month for two months. On 17 September 1953, the service member was notified by her commander that a board of officers had been appointed under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-17, to consider her retention in the service or possible discharge as a result of her infractions of regulations and low efficiency rating. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected to waive her right to counsel, witnesses, and any waiting period before meeting the board. The Board findings and recommendation, dated 18 September 1953, indicates the board found evidence that the service member had traits which rendered her retention in the service undesirable. The board recommended she be discharged from the service because of unfitness with an undesirable discharge. On 8 October 1953, the discharge authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board. On 28 October 1953, the applicant was released from active duty with an undesirable characterization of service in the grade of airman basic. She served 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant. _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2010-02230 in Executive Session on 3 March 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02230: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 July 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.