RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02694

					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was court-martialed for no reason.  The judge and jury said 
that he would go to Lowry AFB for rehabilitation.  His commander 
didn’t like black people and said that he didn’t belong in the 
Air Force.  When he returned home to Texas he could not gain 
employment and was denied all of his benefits.  He would like to 
correct the wrong that was done to him.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
6 Jul 70.

On 11 Oct 72, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge under the provisions of AFM 
39-12, for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with 
military and civil authorities.  The basis for the action 
included the following:

      a.  On 5 Dec 70, 7 Jan 71, and 28 Jan 71, the applicant was 
found guilty at Special Court-Martial for larceny of $67 in 
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 
121, three specifications of assault consummated by a battery in 
violation of UCMJ Article 128, and an additional charge of 
assault consummated by a battery in violation of UCMJ Article 
128.  He was sentenced to a reduction to the grade of airman 
basic (E-1) and confined at hard labor for three months.

      b.  On 8, 12, 13 Apr 72, the applicant failed to repair, 
for this he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

	c.  On 31 Mar 72, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
disorderly conduct and forfeited $75 pay.

	d.  On 9 Jun 72, the applicant was placed on Airman’s 
Control Roster. 

	e.  On 23 Jun 72, the applicant failed to comply with 
verbal instructions, for this he received a LOR.  

	f.  On 24 Jun 72, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
failure to repair, forfeited $25 pay and 16 days extra duty.

On 11 Oct 72, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and elected to have his case heard before an administrative 
discharge board.

On 14 Nov 72, the discharge authority approved the Board’s 
recommendation for an undesirable discharge but disapproved the 
recommendation for probation and rehabilitation.

On 5 Dec 72, the action was found to be legally sufficient and, 
on 8 Dec 72, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation.

On 23 Jan 73, the applicant was furnished an undesirable 
discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 17 days 
of active service.   

On 24 Sep 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 C).


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 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the 
applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to 
determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the 
service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct 
for which he was discharged.  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-2014-02694 in Executive Session on 21 May 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 14.