RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01161
		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 because of his hardship deferment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has never been in trouble before or after the incident that led to his discharge.  In May 1970, his local County Board notified him that his selective service number was classified “3A,” which he understood to mean a hardship deferment.  Therefore, he thought his military service was no longer characterized as UOTHC.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, and a County Veterans Service cover letter.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 December 1962, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic.  He was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2) effective and with a date of rank of 20 February 1963.  On 31 October 1963, the applicant appeared in the Municipal Court of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and pled guilty to the offense of stealing three tires in the value of $95.  On 4 November 1963, he was fined $100 and ordered to pay court costs in lieu of being sentenced to 15 days in jail.  

On 8 November 1963, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-22.  On 12 November 1963, the applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 29 November 1963, after the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed he be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate.  

The applicant was discharged effective 6 December 1963 with an UOTHC discharge.  He served 11 months and 9 days on active duty.  

On 14 April 1965, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.  

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.

On 8 May 2009, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C).  The applicant responded with a personal statement and several letters of character reference (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.  We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficiently compelling to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.

________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 1 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-03239:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 09, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.  
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.
	Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 27 May 09, w/atchs.




					
								Panel Chair
2


3