RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02638

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He didn’t realize that “under honorable conditions” was not the 
same as “honorable.”  His time in the Air Force was stellar.  He 
had no infractions what-so-ever while in the military.  Ever 
since his discharge he has never done anything wrong, not even a 
parking ticket.  He worked as a government inspector, traveling 
all over the United States for the Department of Defense.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
27 Dec 60.

On 25 Mar 64, the applicant's commander notified him of his 
intent to recommend his discharge for unfitness under AFR 39-17.  
The reason for the action included the following:

	a.  On 5 Jan 63, the applicant was cited for speeding.  For 
this offense, he received an administrative reprimand, 
suspension of on-base driving privileges for two months, and 
placement on the Airman’s control roster.

	b.  On 5 May 63, the applicant was cited for speeding.  For 
this offense he was fined $30 under Article 15, Uniformed Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ), assessed four points against his 
base driving record, and his on-base driving privileges were 
suspended for one year.

      c.  On 21 Sep 63, the applicant was cited for being drunk 
in public.  For this offense he was fined $22 and given an 
administrative admonishment.

	d.  On 16 Jan 64, the applicant was cited for speeding.  
For this he was fined $15, given an administrative reprimand and 
assessed two points against his driving record.

	e.  On 5 Mar 64, the applicant was involved in a fatal 
injury dual vehicle accident.  The final disposition was still 
pending at the time of the discharge recommendation.

On 25 Mar 64, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel or submit 
statements on his own behalf.

On 14 Apr 64, the action was found to be legally sufficient and, 
on 17 Apr 64, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation.

On 7 May 64, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 3 years, 
3 months, and 17 days of active service.   

On 17 Jul 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  In response, the applicant submits a Federal 
Bureau of Investigation criminal history report (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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
FBI report, 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 discharge based on clemency; however, 
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to 
conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome 
the misconduct for which he was discharged.  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-2014-02638 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02638 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jan 15.