RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00915
		
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and admits he made a bad mistake.  Since that time, 
he has tried to make up for it.  He has not gotten into any 
trouble since his discharge.  He would like his discharge 
upgraded before he dies.

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and two character references.

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

_________________ ______________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Feb 61, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 30 Sep 64, the applicant was tried and convicted by a general 
court-martial for stealing an engine.  He was sentenced to a bad 
conduct discharge (BCD), 12 months confinement, forfeiture of 
$76.00 per month for 12 months, and reduction in rank to airman 
basic.  On 12 Nov 64, the convening authority approved the 
findings ad sentence for a BCD, forfeiture of $48.00 per month 
for 12 months, confinement for 12 months, and reduction to the 
rank of airman basic (E-1).  On 25 Nov 64, the Board of Review 
approved and affirmed the findings and sentence.  On 18 Dec 64, 
the convening authority ordered the execution of the BCD and 
remitted the remaining confinement for the applicant as of 
24 Dec 64.

On 24 Dec 64, the applicant was furnished an under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and was credited with 
3 years, 7 months, and 22 days of active service.

On 18 Nov 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  In response, the applicant indicates that he has 
been productive member of society since his discharge.  He 
continued to work in the automotive industry and eventually 
opened his own business for 37 years.  He does not drink alcohol 
or smoke and has not been in any trouble.  In 2008, he became a 
civilian employee with the Government until his retirement in 
August in 2013.  Along with his response, the applicant provided 
his request for an FBI report, autobiography, resume, documents 
extracted from his military and civilian records, his father’s 
military separation documents, previously submitted character 
statements.  The Applicant’s complete response, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA JAJM recommends granting the requested relief.  The 
applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge and has not 
identified any error or injustice in the processing of his 
court-martial.  In reviewing the applicant’s record, he was 
described as the "most remorseful person," and his commander, 
former commander, first sergeant, and confinement officer all 
recommended rehabilitation and retraining.  Furthermore, no one 
had anything bad to say about the applicant, and based on the 
his hard work ethic and can do attitude, his confinement was cut 
in half with the remaining six months of his confinement 
remitted.  While a BCD did characterize his actions at that time 
in 1964, he has shown, through the work he did while he was in 
the Air Force and since that time that the punishment has made 
an impact on his life.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 May 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 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 was 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 regulations, unduly 
harsh, or disproportionate to the offense committed.  In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on 
the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence 
presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief 
sought on that basis at this time.  While the Board notes the 
recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM to grant relief, Congress’ intent 
in setting up the Veterans Benefits Program was to express 
thanks for Veterans’ personal sacrifice, separations from 
family, facing hostile enemy action, and suffering financial 
hardship.  It would be unfair to all those who served honorably 
to extend those Veterans benefits to someone who committed 
crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty.  For these 
reasons, this Board very carefully weighs requests to upgrade 
the character of a discharge and, in doing so, carefully 
considers whether the impact of an applicant’s contributions to 
his or her community are substantial enough for us to conclude 
they overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged.  
Furthermore, we also very carefully considered whether or not an 
upgrade of the discharge would create a larger injustice to 
those who served under honorable conditions and earned the 
characterization of service the applicant seeks.  While the 
applicant has presented supporting statements indicating he has 
apparently made a successful post-service transition, we do not 
find the documentation provided sufficient to conclude we should 
upgrade his discharge at this time.  In this respect, we note 
that while the applicant has provided some supporting 
statements, these statements do not give us any sense of the 
degree of the impact of his presence in the community and if he 
impact is so meritorious that we could conclude an upgrade of 
his discharge would not constitute an injustice to those who 
have earned this characterization of service.  While we do not 
find the evidence presented sufficient to grant the requested 
relief at this time, the applicant retains the right to request 
reconsideration of this decision if he provides new evidence.  
Said evidence could be in the form of statements from community 
leaders specifically describing how his efforts in the community 
have positively impacted others.  We also note the applicant has 
requested a copy of an arrest record from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) and such a report would also be instrumental 
in our ability to determine if the applicant’s post-service 
accomplishments are sufficient to warrant an upgrade his 
discharge.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-00915 in Executive Session on 19 Dec 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Apr 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Nov 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 13, w/atchs.




                                   Chair