RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03089

	XXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a General Discharge.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a good Airman, but needed psychological help for his alcohol problem and did not deserve an UOTHC discharge. 

At the time of his discharge, he was 17 years old and realizes he was not fit for military service.  He was not only emotionally immature, but a full-blown alcoholic as well.  However, he was still able to perform well on his job and was consistently rated an “excellent Airman.” Additionally, he quit drinking 31 years ago and asks the Board for “compassion” so that his grandchildren will not see him as a “total failure.”  

In support of his request, the applicant provides his military records along with a “Statement of Material Contentions” and an “Issues Supporting Discharge Correction” document highlighting 19 issues that support his discharge correction and indicates that; his offenses were minor; his ability to serve was impaired by youth, alcohol and psychiatric problems for which he was denied both a ‘hardship’ and ‘Medical’ discharge; and the punishment was too severe compared with today’s standards.      

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant was enlisted as an Airman Basic in the Regular Air Force on 1 Aug 1961 for a period of four years.

On 21 Aug 1961, the applicant received a Summary Court-Martial for violation of Article 91, UCMJ, disrespectful toward an NCO, and violation of Article 108, UCMJ, willful damage of government property.  He was reduced from Airman Third Class to Airman Basic and confined to hard labor for twenty days and a forfeiture of $40.00 in pay.

On 23 Nov 1964, the applicant received an Article 15 for violation of Article 134, UCMJ, leaving the scene of an accident, and Article 86, UCMJ, failure to repair.  He was reduced from Airman Third Class to Airman Basic, ordered into correctional custody for thirty days and a forfeiture of $56.00 in pay per month for two months.  

On 20 Mar 1964, the applicant was placed on a Control Roster for receiving a referral Performance Report. 

On 15 Dec 1964 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 proved himself unfit for further military service as evidenced by frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities.  Specifically, the commander noted the following:

a) He was reduced from Airman Third Class (A3C) to Airman Basic (AB) by Summary Court-Martial for violation of Article 91, UCMJ, (disrespectful toward an NCO on 11 Oct 62) and violation of Article 108, UCMJ, (destruction of Government property on 11 Oct 62).  

b) He received a traffic ticket for illegal parking on 14 Oct 64. 

c) He was placed on the Airman Control Roster on 20 Mar 14 for having received a referral Performance Report.

d) He received an Article 15 on 23 Nov 64 for violation of Article 134, UCMJ, (wrongfully and unlawfully left the scene of an accident without making your identity known on 31 Oct 64) and violation of Article 86, UCMJ, (failed to go at the time prescribed to your proper place of duty on 18 Nov 64) for which he was reduced from A1C to AB, ordered into correctional custody for thirty (30) days and ordered to forfeit $56.00 of his pay per month for two months.

e) On 4 Feb 64 a blue B-15 jacket (with a coin purse in the sleeve pocket) belonging to another Airman was reported to be missing from his duty section. Since he was the only person missing from duty at that time, he was suspected of having had it. Upon searching his room and personal effects the jacket and the coin purse were found.   During this search three recent issues of USSR Illustrated Monthly were found among his personal effects. Further searching also revealed several bolts which were identical with parts missing from the aft section of a T-38 plane which had caused the plane to be out of service for some length of time.

On 15 Dec 1964, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived his rights to have a hearing before a board of officers and submitted statements on his own behalf.  

On 15 January 1965, Special Order A-28 relieved the applicant from his current assignment and discharged him under other than honorable conditions. 

On 14 July 1969, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied a similar request, stating they “carefully considered all the facts of record in [the applicant’s] case and after thorough deliberation concluded that a change in the type or nature of [his] discharge is not warranted. 

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 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 discharge 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.  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 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-2013-03089 in Executive Session on 24 Sept 2014, under the provisions of AFI 362603:

	XXXXXXXXX, Chair
	XXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jul 13.