RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTTER OF	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05972

			COUNSEL:  NONE
	
			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to general.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He enlisted in the Air Force when he was 17 years old at the 
insistence of his father.  He was not mentally or emotionally 
prepared for military service.  He entered into a general 
enlistment under the advice of his recruiter.  He made it clear 
that he wanted to enter to learn a skill and he chose aviation 
mechanic; however, instead he was made a packing and crating 
specialist.

The applicant submits no supporting documentation.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 December 
1977.  On 22 June 1978, under advisement of counsel, he 
requested that he be discharged from the Air Force for the good 
of the service.  The applicant submitted this request after his 
commander preferred charges against him for being absent without 
leave (AWOL), in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice.  His commander recommended the request be 
approved based on the frequency in which the applicant was AWOL, 
as well as, his general attitude about the AWOL and effort 
towards rehabilitation.  The staff judge advocate found the 
discharge legally sufficient on 19 July 1978.   The commander 
approved the request on 21 July 1978.  The applicant was 
discharged on 21 July 1978 with an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge.  He was credited with 4 months and 27 days 
of active duty service. 

On 11 September 2013, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response 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 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 during the discharge process.  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, under the advisement of counsel, voluntarily 
requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial at which 
time he acknowledged that he understood the adverse nature of 
service characterized as UOTHC and the possible consequences 
thereof.  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, or 
unduly harsh. Additionally, in the absence of any evidence 
concerning his post-service activities, we do not find it would 
be in the interest of justice to upgrade the discharge on the 
basis of clemency.  Therefore, in view of the above and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05972 in Executive Session on 17 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 12, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.