RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01546 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He did not have good representation of counsel during his discharge process his discharge was too harsh for the offense that he committed. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jul 69. On 12 Jul 73, the applicant was found guilty at a Special Court- Martial of one specification of assault and one specification of communicating a threat in violation of Articles 128 and 134, respectively, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), forfeiture of $200 pay per month for three months, confinement at hard labor for three months and reduction to the grade of airman basic (E- 1). On 14 Aug 73, the convening authority approved the finding and only the portion of the sentence as it pertained to the confinement, forfeiture of pay and reduction in grade was executed. On 20 Aug 73, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Unsuitability, Unfitness or Misconduct, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (Conditions for Unfitness). The specific reasons for the action were resisting apprehension, four specifications of assault, failure to go to his place duty at the prescribed time, two specifications of being drunk and disorderly, and being under the influence of alcohol while on duty in violation of Articles, 86, 91, 95, 128, and 134, respectively, of the UCMJ. For these actions he received four Article 15 actions, two vacations of suspensions, and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). On 7 Sep 73, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged and furnished an Undesirable Discharge. On 11 Sep 73, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 3 years, 11 months, and 25 days of total active service. On 29 May 86, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, but denied the request because the facts of record in his case did not warrant changing the type of discharge. On 13 Jan 14, 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 F). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s application is untimely and there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant’s record indicates he received counseling on numerous occasions regarding his behavior and was afforded the opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates the charges listed in section “b” of the “Facts” section of the Air Force evaluation does not pertain to him. He was discharged from the Air Force on 11 Sep 73 and the charges listed in the evaluation are dated 18 Apr 74 and 10 May 74 for something that he did not commit (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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 process. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for misconduct was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discharge authority’s discretion. He has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise. While we note the advisory opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) contains facts that do not appear to apply to the applicant, this error, in and of itself, does not constitute evidence that his discharge was erroneous or inappropriate to the circumstances and does not undermine our finding, based on our own independent review of the facts and circumstances, that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate to the circumstances. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency. However, in the absence of any evidence pertaining to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s UOTHC discharge. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-01546 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 23 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jul 13. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jan 14. 4 5