RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01327 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His discharge be upgraded to honorable 2. His rank of airman first class be restored with pay. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and states his discharge was too harsh. He was discharged with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and granted 100 percent disability. In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of letters to and from the United States Senate. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Aug 61, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Feb 66. On 25 May 67, he was reduced to the grade of airman basic by a summary court-martial for violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) for a period of 31 days. On 21 Jul 67, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, for Expiration Term of Service (ETS). He served a total of 5 years, 10 months and 13 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant’s request for restoration of his rank to airman first class be time barred. DPSOE states the application was not filed within the three-year limitation imposed by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 3.5, 1 Mar 96. DPSOE notes the applicant’s request may also be dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches which denies relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting a claim. DPSOE notes laches consists of two elements -- inexcusable delay and prejudice to the Air Force resulting there from. The applicant waited almost 44 years after his discharge before he petitioned the AFBCMR. The complete DPSOE 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 17 Jun 11, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ 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 regarding the applicant’s request to restore his grade to airman first class. We note the applicant’s reduction in grade was part of the sentence he received as a result of conviction by a summary court martial. Although the applicant asserts the punishment he received was excessively harsh considering his condition, he has not provided evidence to show that he was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong and should not have been held accountable for his misconduct. Regarding his request for upgrade of his discharge, although the applicant states he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, his records indicate he was discharged with an honorable characterization of service. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _______________________________________________________________ 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 this application in Executive Session on 26 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-01327: Exhibit A. Two DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 11 and 22 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11.Y