RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05023 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should never have received a UOTHC discharge without the Air Force considering the impact on his wife and children. The reason he received this discharge was that he was in debt, but only three months before being discharged he received his second good conduct medal. He was given a choice of a court martial or an undesirable discharge and he took the discharge. He is now 79 years old and wants the Air Force to hear his side of the story. After leaving the Air Force, he had a great life and a great family. He went to work for Lockheed Aircraft and other aircraft companies, deployed on more than one occasion to Vietnam as a tech rep and supervisor, worked for United Space Alliance on the space shuttle, and retired at the end of a successful career. In all that time his employers never made him feel like he was “undesirable.” Since he left the Air Force he has proven what type of a man he is. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the time of the incident in question, the applicant was serving as a Staff Sergeant in the Air Force. On 11 Sep 59, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for an undesirable discharge for gross financial mismanagement and irresponsibility. The applicant was notified of his right to a board hearing, legal counsel, and to submit statements on his own behalf. On 18 Sep 59, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his rights to a board hearing, legal counsel, and to submit statements. On 28 Sep 59, the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge, and on 16 Oct 59 the discharge authority directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. On 17 Nov 59, the applicant received a UOTHC discharge and was credited with after 7 years, 7 months, and 15 days of total active service. On 4 Jun 13, 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 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. We find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process. It appears the applicant’s UOTHC discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and within the commander’s discretionary authority. No evidence has been presented to indicate otherwise. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency; however, other than his own assertions concerning his successful career after leaving the Air Force, the applicant provided no character references or documentation for us to consider in determining whether his post-service accomplishments were sufficient to overcome the misconduct that formed the basis of the discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists for us to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 the application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05023 in Executive Session on 18 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jun 13, w/atch. Panel Chair