RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05183
		COUNSEL: NO
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has learned from his youthful mistake and kept a clean 
record.  He was informed that if he stayed out of trouble for 
six months he could request an upgrade.  

He was incarcerated for three months and was on probation for 
three years.  He has had no further occurrences since being 
discharged.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge and letter from the Governor of Virginia, 
dated 2 Aug 04.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 May 71, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.  On 
12 Jun 72, he was discharged with service characterized as 
UOTHC.  He served 1 year and 16 days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was appropriately administered and within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not 
provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the 
processing of his discharge.  

DPSOR states that they cannot confirm what the applicant may 
have been told regarding an upgrade to his discharge service 
characterization; however, there is no automatic upgrade 
characterization due to the passage of time and each request for 
upgrade is decided by the evidence presented and the individual 
merits of the case.  

The complete DPSOR 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 22 Mar 13, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, this office has not received a 
response.  

________________________________________________________________

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.  Based upon the 
presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs 
and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume the 
applicant’s discharge was proper and in compliance with the 
appropriate directives.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service, the infractions which 
led to his administrative separation and lack of post-service 
documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted 
on this basis.    In view of the above and 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 Docket Number BC-
2012-05183 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Mar 13.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 13.




								
								Panel Chair