RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01546

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not have good representation of counsel during his 
discharge process his discharge was too harsh for the offense 
that he committed.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jul 69.

On 12 Jul 73, the applicant was found guilty at a Special Court-
Martial of one specification of assault and one specification of 
communicating a threat in violation of Articles 128 and 134, 
respectively, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  
He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), forfeiture of 
$200 pay per month for three months, confinement at hard labor 
for three months and reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-
1).

On 14 Aug 73, the convening authority approved the finding and 
only the portion of the sentence as it pertained to the 
confinement, forfeiture of pay and reduction in grade was 
executed.

On 20 Aug 73, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Unsuitability, 
Unfitness or Misconduct, Resignation or Request for Discharge 
for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the 
Rehabilitation Program (Conditions for Unfitness).  The specific 
reasons for the action were resisting apprehension, four 
specifications of assault, failure to go to his place duty at 
the prescribed time, two specifications of being drunk and 
disorderly, and being under the influence of alcohol while on 
duty in violation of Articles, 86, 91, 95, 128, and 134, 
respectively, of the UCMJ.  For these actions he received four 
Article 15 actions, two vacations of suspensions, and a Letter 
of Reprimand (LOR).

On 7 Sep 73, the discharge authority directed that the applicant 
be discharged and furnished an Undesirable Discharge. 

On 11 Sep 73, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and 
was credited with 3 years, 11 months, and 25 days of total 
active service.

On 29 May 86, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
reviewed the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, but 
denied the request because the facts of record in his case did 
not warrant changing the type of discharge.  

On 13 Jan 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit F).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s 
application is untimely and there is no evidence of an error or 
an injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in the master 
personnel records, the discharge, to include the service 
characterization, was appropriately administered and within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant’s record 
indicates he received counseling on numerous occasions regarding 
his behavior and was afforded the opportunity to overcome his 
deficiencies.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates the charges listed in section “b” of the 
“Facts” section of the Air Force evaluation does not pertain to 
him.  He was discharged from the Air Force on 11 Sep 73 and the 
charges listed in the evaluation are dated 18 Apr 74 and 10 May 
74 for something that he did not commit (Exhibit E).  
________________________________________________________________

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 in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or 
injustice that occurred in the discharge process.  Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Under 
Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for misconduct 
was consistent with the substantive requirements of the 
discharge regulation and within the discharge authority’s 
discretion.  He has provided no evidence which would lead us to 
believe otherwise.  While we note the advisory opinion of the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) contains facts 
that do not appear to apply to the applicant, this error, in and 
of itself, does not constitute evidence that his discharge was 
erroneous or inappropriate to the circumstances and does not 
undermine our finding, based on our own independent review of 
the facts and circumstances, that the applicant’s discharge was 
appropriate to the circumstances.  In the interest of justice, 
we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency.  
However, in the absence of any evidence pertaining to the 
applicant’s activities since leaving the service, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the requested relief on that basis.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we 
conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s UOTHC 
discharge.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-01546 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                   , Panel Chair
	                   , Member
	                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 23 May 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jul 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jan 14.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair
                                    
4