RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00113
	XXXXXXX 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjustly received because it was issued when 
he failed to get a haircut.  Until now he had neglected to file 
the paperwork to get it upgraded.

This started out as a joke when he submitted paperwork to resign 
his noncommissioned officer (NCO) status.  However, someone else 
saw the paperwork and started processing it and once the joke 
got out of hand he refused to get a haircut.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Feb 68, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.  

On 6 Oct 70, the applicant presented his immediate supervisor 
with a letter to resign his status as a NCO and requested 
immediate discharge.  This letter was indorsed by his immediate 
supervisor.

On 27 Oct 70, the applicant acknowledged receipt of a direct 
order from a superior NCO to get a haircut.  On 28 Oct 70, 
disciplinary action against the applicant was approved. 

On 4 Nov 70, the applicant received an Article 15 for, on or 
about 28 Oct 70, failing to obey an order issued by a superior 
NCO to get a haircut.  The applicant refused to accept the 
Article 15 and elected trial by court-martial.  After consulting 
with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge 
for the good of the service, acknowledging that his request, if 
approved might result in an undesirable discharge.

On 24 Nov 70, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as UOTHC and issued a DD Form 258AF, Undesirable 
Discharge Certificate.  He was credited with two years, nine 
months, and six days of active duty service.  

________________________________________________________________

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.  
We note that prior to the events under review, the applicant had 
an exemplary record of performance; however, after refusing to 
obey a direct order from his superior NCO to get a haircut, in 
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), his 
actions eventually led to his discharge.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading his discharge on the basis of 
clemency; however, in the absence of post-service documentation, 
we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of 
his discharge is warranted on that basis.  Should the applicant 
provide post-service documentation, we would be willing to 
reconsider his request.  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 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-2013-00113 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.




                                   Panel Chair