RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01249 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has suffered much heartache throughout his life. He served his country with pride and believes he is due justice. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 8 October 1954. On or about 30 April 1956 and 19 December 1956, the applicant received two Article 15s for failure to repair and for being in the city without authorization. On 28 December 1956, the applicant was tried by a summary court- martial and found guilty for failure to repair for duty and failure to report to the commander. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for fifteen (15) days and a forfeiture of $65.86. On 3 June 1957, the applicant was tried by a summary court- martial and found guilty for operating a private vehicle on the base in a reckless manner and under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to hard labor for fifteen (15) days, restricted to the base for thirty (30) days and a forfeiture of $50.00. On 6 September 1957, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 2 years, 10 months, and 16 days of active service. On 5 April 1983, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. The board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process (Exhibit B). On 24 March 2015, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant appeared and testified before a discharge board on 5 August 1957 at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. The applicant’s immediate superior testified that the applicant had been reprimanded or counseled at least 15 times in a two year period. The applicant was beyond rehabilitation in the opinion of his superiors. At the time of the board, the applicant was required to complete a structured repayment of debt every pay period for multiple debts he accrued in the local area. Prior to the discharge board, the applicant was found guilty at two summary courts-martial. The discharge board also reviewed eight other incidents in which the applicant had been taken into custody by either civilian or military police. Ordinarily, an applicant must file an application within three years after an error or injustice is discovered or, with due diligence, should have been discovered. The applicant’s non- judicial punishment, courts-martial and discharge occurred from 1956-1957. Since he was on notice of the basis and characterization of discharge almost 58 years ago, the application is untimely. Additionally, there is no legal error or injustice. The documentation shows that the applicant was afforded all of his rights and there was a legal basis for his discharge from the Air Force with a less than general characterization. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he was promised a general discharge and this broken promise has tormented him for years. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 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 statement, in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board finds no evidence of an error or injustice 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, based on the evidence before us, the Board finds no basis to grant clemency at this time. However, the Board would be willing to reconsider his appeal should he provide new and relevant information relative to his claim. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2015-01249 in Executive Session on Thursday, 19 November 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01249 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 March 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 March 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 5 June 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 June 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated. 4