RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00047

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was promised by the recruiting office he would be working in 
motor pool due to his scores in mechanics.  Upon completion of 
Basic Military Training he was given a job in Air Police.  He 
was disappointed and could not function.  At the same time, his 
father started having heart attacks, so he did what he needed to 
do to get home. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on       
10 Jun 59.

On 25 Feb 60, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) 
for consuming alcohol within six hours of duty.

On 26 Feb 60, the applicant received an Article 15 for driving 
through a school zone at twenty-five miles per hour and the 
speed limit was fifteen miles per hour.  His punishment 
consisted of restriction to the limits of the base for two 
weeks.

On 26 Feb 60, the applicant was tried by summary court-martial 
based on the charge of incapacitating himself for duty by prior 
indulgence in alcohol.  He pled guilty and was found guilty.  
The applicant was sentenced in accordance with his plea by a 
military judge to confinement at hard labor for twenty-five 
days, forfeiture of $50.00 of pay, and reduction to the grade of 
airman basic. 

On 8 Mar 60, the applicant received an LOC for the past nine 
months of service and specifically in regard to the violation of 
city traffic laws and the incident involving incapacitation for 
sentry duty.  

On 9 Mar 60, the applicant received an LOC for reporting to duty 
on 25 Feb 60 under the influence of alcohol.

On 23 Mar 60, the applicant received an LOC for failing to bathe 
at regular intervals or daily, and that his laundry bag was full 
of dirty, sweaty and smelly items of clothing.

On 2 Apr 60, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge for “Unfitness,” under the 
provisions of AFR 39-17.  The reason for the action was the 
applicant’s demonstrated unfitness for further retention because 
of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military 
and civilian authorities.  Specifically, on 26 Feb 60, he was 
apprehended by the local police for driving through a school 
zone at 25 miles per hour (m.p.h.), knowing the said speed limit 
was 15 m.p.h.; he had been counseled repeatedly counselled and 
taken to the shower room and made to take a bath, as his 
personal hygiene did not measure up to Air Force standards, and 
on 26 Feb 60, he was tried by a Summary courts-martial for 
incapacitating himself for by prior indulgence in alcoholic 
beverages. 

On 9 Mar 60, the applicant submitted a letter to his commander 
requesting a discharge that outlined his reasons as to why he no 
longer wished to be in the Air Force.

On 10 Apr 60, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
waived his right to submit statements or rebuttal concerning the 
proposed discharge action.  

On 12 May 60, the applicant was furnished with a general 
discharge, and was credited with 10 months and 11 days of active 
service, excluding lost time from 26 Feb 60 to 17 Mar 60.

The applicant originally applied to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) on 7 Dec 13; however, he was advised that 
since it had been over 15 years since his discharge, he could no 
longer avail himself of that avenue of relief and must submit an 
application to the Board.

On 28 Apr 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 C).




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 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, due to the applicant’s failure to provide 
information regarding his post-service activities, we cannot 
conclude that such consideration is warranted.  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-2014-00047 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
	
	







The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to 
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00047:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.