RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03071

	XXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge, with all associated benefits for him and his family.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, his race and the military’s overwhelming blatant racism during that time period was the determining factor in not receiving a fair review of the circumstance surrounding his discharge.  Additionally, his appeal for clemency is based upon his conduct and contributions to society since his discharge.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides three character reference letters; a letter of congratulations regarding his appointment as President of the Lions Club for the City of Richmond, CA (1972) from then Congressman Jerome R. Waldie; a letter from his spouse addressed to the board; and a letter addressed to President Obama, written by the applicant’s two daughters requesting assistance to change the contested discharge.  Additionally, the applicant expects a forthcoming letter from Congresswoman Barbara Lee and an introduction letter from his Bishop and a Casework Intake Form from the Congresswoman’s office.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve on 14 October 1953 and entered active duty.

On 31 July 1959, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his elimination from the service and advised on his right to obtain military legal counsel.  The commander’s reasons for the action were the applicant’s failure to demonstrate the standards of exemplary personal conduct and character required of an Air Force officers, noting that all efforts toward rehabilitation had failed.  Specifically, the commander noted the following:

a. He engaged in an unlawful cohabitation with a woman, not his wife from November 1958 to June 1959.

b. He was eliminated from the Primary Basic Observer Upgrading Course in December 1958 for flying deficiency.

c. He failed to report at 0800 hours on 2 December 1958 to the Faculty Board Records, as ordered, for which he received a written administrative reprimand.

d. He failed to report to the Base Commissary on 1 May 1959, at 0800 hours, for inventory detail, as ordered, for which he received an administrative reprimand.

e. On 6 June 1959, he was arrested and confined in Sacramento County Jail on a charge of assault for assaulting a female with a hot iron burning her face and hand.  He pled guilty and was sentenced to 6 months in the county jail, to serve 30 days, with the remainder of the sentence suspended on his good behavior for a two-year period.

On 3 August 1959, the applicant tendered his resignation for the good of the service in lieu of further elimination action.  He acknowledged that he understood he would not be entitled to mustering-out pay or settlement of accrued leave; that if discharge Under Other Than Honorable Condition (UOTHC), as a result of the acceptance of his resignation, he may have been deprived of many rights and benefits under laws administered by the Veterans’ Administration, and that he had been afforded the opportunity of consulting legal counsel prior to submitting his resignation.

The applicant’s resignation was accepted and on 15 September 1959, he was discharged UOTHC from all appointments in the Air Force, after completing 5 years, 11 months, and 2 days.

On 6 June 1960, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied a similar request, stating they “carefully considered all the facts pertinent to [the applicant’s] separation from the service and directed that no change be made in the type and nature of [the applicant’s] separation.” 

A complete copy of the Record of Hearing is attached at Exhibit B (with attachments).

________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant's discharge, which had its basis in his voluntary resignation for the good of the service in lieu of further action to terminate his service based on his failure to demonstrate the standards of exemplary personal conduct and character required of an Air Force officer.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  To the contrary, prior to voluntarily tendering his resignation, the applicant acknowledged that he was aware of the adverse impact of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  Although the applicant contends that his race and the military’s overwhelming blatant racism during the period under review was the determining factor in not receiving a fair review of the circumstances surrounding his discharge, he provides no evidence to support this conclusion.  We also note that he never raised this issue when submitting his voluntary resignation or in his request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board in 1960, when requesting an upgrade of the characterization of service.  We conclude, therefore, the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances; especially considering his civil conviction for assaulting a female with a hot iron, burning her face and hands.  In the interest of justice, we also considered upgrading the characterization of his service based on clemency; however, we do not find the information provided sufficient for us to conclude that his discharge should be upgraded on this basis.  In view of the above we find no basis to warrant favorable action on this application.  

________________________________________________________________
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-2013-03071 in Executive Session on 24 Sept 2014, under the provisions of AFI 362603:

	Ms. XXXXXXXX, Chair
	Ms. XXXXXXXX, Member
	Mr. XXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Nov 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jun 13.