RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01529 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His military record is correct that he was found guilty of certain petty crimes during his service in the Air Force in 1968 and that he was Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) and received confinement. However, the record does not show that he was wrongfully and racially targeted for crimes he did not commit. He was not discharged by order of a court-martial. Because he is African American it is germane to his story. In 1968, he accidently entered the “white barracks” while inebriated. After doing so, he experienced intense and constant racially motivated hatred and bullying. When he reported what was happening to his chain-of-command beginning with his First Sergeant, he was victimized with false accusations and fear tactics. He feared for his life and ran. No evidence was presented at his court-martial and he feels he was wrongly convicted based on manufactured and conjured statements and incidents. He did not know his accuser and there is no way he could have stolen the $56.80 out of his locker because there was a guard on duty to prevent unauthorized entry into the barracks. He believes the stolen white shorts and towel were planted because he would not wear them. He was also accused of stealing a radio, which never happened nor was it found amongst his possessions. He resigned himself to the sentence imposed and when his discharge came, it was a relief to be away from the Air Force. He requested records of the court-martial proceedings but none exist. He knows he went AWOL in fear for his life, but he joined with honorable aspirations and served honorably because he did not steal anything. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Mar 68. On 11 Oct 68, he was notified by his Commander that he was recommending him for an undesirable discharge resulting from the following: a. On 13 Sep 68, the applicant admitted to fraudulently charging 106 long distance telephone calls totaling $215.50, to fictitious numbers. b. On 12 Sep 68, the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted by Special Court-martial for one specification of AWOL, three specifications for failure to go and one specification of larceny. c. On 2 Aug 68, he received an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for stealing 3 pairs of white shorts, one white T-Shirt, one white towel, and one handkerchief, valued at less than $20.00, the property of another airman. He acknowledged receipt, did not demand a trial by court- martial and did not submit a statement. d. On 7 Jun 68, he received an Article 15, UCMJ, for stealing a black transistor radio valued around $25.00 from a fellow airman. He acknowledged receipt, did not demand a trial by court-martial and did not submit a statement. He was appointed legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and did not submit any statements upon his own behalf. On 3 Dec 68, the applicant was 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, Chapter 2, Section B, Paragraph 2-15a, frequent discreditable involvement with military and civil authorities. His service was characterized as UOTHC and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He was credited with 4 months and 29 days of active service, excluding 58 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement. On 28 April 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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, to include his rebuttal response, 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 available 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2014-01529 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01529 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Information Bulletin, not dated. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 4