RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02023
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, he was informed that he could 
request that his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States 
Report of Transfer or Discharge be amended to reflect an 
honorable discharge.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Sep 62, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

On 29 Sep 64, the applicant was tried by Special Court-Martial.  
He was charged with two specifications of larceny in violation 
of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He 
pled guilty and was found guilty of all specifications.  He was 
sentenced to reduction in the grade to airman basic, confinement 
at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $50.00 pay per 
month for six months.  The convening authority approved the 
findings and sentence.  

On 29 Jan 65, the unexecuted portions of the sentence to 
confinement and forfeitures were remitted. 

On or about 8 Apr 65, the applicant without proper authority 
failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  For this misconduct, he 
received an Article 15, UCMJ, ordered to perform extra duty and 
was restricted to the limits of Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas 
for a period of 14 days. 

By undated letter, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFR 39-17, Unfitness for a pattern of frequent 
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and after consulting with counsel, waived his right to 
submit a statement on his own behalf.  He also stated that he 
did not desire rehabilitation under the Probation and 
Rehabilitation Program.  

By undated letter, the administrative officer concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation and recommended the applicant receive 
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  

On 3 Sep 65, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge.  On 9 Sep 65, the applicant was discharged with 
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in 
the grade of airman basic.  He served two years, seven months 
and eight days of total active 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 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 characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service and the infractions 
which led to his administrative separation we are not persuaded 
that an upgrade is warranted.  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-2013-02023 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
      Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.




								
								Panel Chair