RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03258 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was exposed to Agent Orange while in Vietnam and has recently been diagnosed with heart disease related to the exposure. He is unable to be compensated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for the illness unless his character of discharge is upgraded to at least a general discharge. He had no choice in being exposed to Agent Orange and deserves to be compensated. In June 1971, he requested an early separation because he was passed over for promotion several times which was humiliating. His separation request was denied and he was provided no rationale for the disapproval. His behavioral issues started in Vietnam when neither the first sergeant nor the base commander could get him promoted. He was a great airman until he was told he would not be promoted because of his scores on his promotion tests. He just wanted to get out and get on with his life but was not allowed to separate. Eventually, he went Absent Without Leave (AWOL). However, he returned to his base voluntarily. He was given the discharge paper work by a judge advocate who told him to sign it or it would be much worse. He was discharged on 15 December 1971 for being AWOL for two days. He was also told that it would be easy to request a change in the discharge characterization which he found out was not true upon requesting an upgrade of his discharge in 1978. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 January 1968, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 23 August 1971, the applicant was informed by his commander a preliminary investigation disclosed on or about 24 July 1971, he was absent from his organization without authority and remained absent until on or about 16 August 1971, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant declined trial by court-martial. Subsequently, he was reduced to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C, E-3) and forfeiture of $100.00 of pay which was suspended until 20 December 1971. On 18 October 1971, the applicant’s suspension of the forfeiture of pay in the amount of $100.00 was vacated as result of his AWOL for the period of 20 September through 27 September 1971. In a letter dated 26 November 1971, the applicant requested he be discharged for the good of the service. The applicant acknowledged he understood approval of the discharge may result in him receiving an undesirable discharge in which event he would not be entitled to settlement for accrued leave, may be deprived of VA benefits and encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He indicated he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel regarding submitting the discharge request. On 8 December 1971, the staff judge advocate found the applicant’s request for discharge with an undesirable discharge certificate legally sufficient. On 10 December 1971, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Probation and Rehabilitation Program, with an undesirable discharge certificate. On 15 December 1971, he was discharged with a UOTHC and with reason and authority of “AFM 39-12, Sec F, paragraph 3-78.” On 9 September 1981, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge. The AFDRB concluded a change in the type or nature of the applicant’s discharge was not warranted as the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. ? On 8 December 2015, the AFBCMR staff provided the applicant with an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leave the service (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 an error or injustice. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded so he may be compensated by the DVA; however, 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. We note Congress’ intent in setting up the Veterans’ Benefits Program was to express thanks for Veterans’ personal sacrifice. It would be unfair to all those who served honorably to extend those Veterans benefits to someone who committed acts of misconduct while on active duty. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought 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-2015-03258 in Executive Session on 10 March 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 July 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 December 2015, w/atch.