RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01509

  			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty:

	Include foreign-service time for service in Thailand; 
(administratively corrected)

	Upgrade his characterization of service from undesirable to 
honorable; and
	
	Change his rank from Airman Basic (AB) to Sergeant (Sgt).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In his last assignment, his first sergeant constantly harassed 
him such that he went home and did not return.  While he was 
Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL), he was promoted to 
sergeant.  He went AWOL a second time and was eventually court-
martialed for his actions.   

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely request because he couldn’t find his paperwork 
until after his mother’s death in 2013.  When the paperwork was 
found, he discovered the incorrect information and now requests 
it be corrected.  

In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, performance records, award certificates, court-
martial documents as well as comments from supervisors and 
superiors.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 Jul 69, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 23 Nov 71, he received notification his commander proposed 
Article 15, UCMJ disciplinary punishment for being AWOL on 5 Nov 
71 in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He acknowledged receipt 
the same day indicating he did not demand a trial by court-
martial and was not submitting any statements on his own behalf.  
He was reduced in grade to Airman First Class (A1C) (suspended 
until 15 May 72) and ordered to forfeit $50.00 per month for two 
months.  He acknowledged the punishment in writing stating he 
did not intend to appeal.  

On 30 Nov 71, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the proposed 
action correct and legally sufficient.  

On 22 Feb 72, his squadron commander vacated the suspension of 
his reduction in grade to A1C for failing to go to his place of 
duty on or about 1 Feb 72, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He 
acknowledged receipt indicating he did not desire a personal 
hearing nor was he submitting a written statement on his behalf.  

According to Special Court-Martial Order No. 16, dated 17 May 
72, he was found guilty of being AWOL from 7 to 23 Apr 72, in 
violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He was sentenced to reduction in 
grade to AB, forfeiture of $100.00 per month for three months 
and to be confined at hard labor for three months.  

On 4 Dec 72, the applicant submitted a request to his base 
commander for discharge for the good of the service pursuant to 
AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct Personal 
Abuse of Drugs, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the 
Good of the Service, paragraph 2-78.   

According to a letter dated 6 Dec 72, the psychiatric evaluation 
indicated he had been diagnosed with character-behavior 
disorder, anti-social personality.  
 
On 7 Dec 72, the SJA disagreed with the immediate commander’s 
recommendation to approve issuing an undesirable discharge to 
the applicant.  

On 8 Dec 72, his support group commander requested the 
discharge, pursuant to AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, 
Misconduct Personal Abuse of Drugs, Resignation or Request for 
Discharge for the Good of the Service, paragraph 2-88, be 
disapproved and the applicant be court-martialed.  

On 12 Dec 72, the SJA recommended he be discharged with an 
undesirable characterization due to his first charged AWOL of 
55 days, immediately followed by a 13 day AWOL and a past record 
of three other instances of being AWOL.    

On 15 Dec 72, the applicant received an undesirable discharge.  
He was credited with 3 years, 5 months and 5 days of active 
service.   

In a letter dated 20 May 14, AFPC/DPAPP advised the applicant 
they determined he had boots-on-the-ground in Thailand from 
13 Aug 70 to 13 Aug 71, for one year and one day and that his 
records would be administratively corrected.  They further 
advised the applicant that specific locations are not annotated 
on a member’s DD Form 214, so he could use their letter as proof 
of “boots-on-ground” in Thailand.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  There is nothing in the applicant’s 
records officially promoting him to the rank of Sgt.  On 22 Nov 
71, his commander recommended he be reduced in rank, without 
suspension, for being AWOL.  He further stated the applicant had 
been promoted to sergeant while in AWOL status, but would not 
have been promoted if anything could have been done to preclude 
it.  On 23 Nov 71, the demotion authority approved reduction in 
rank from Sgt to A1C, suspended until 15 May 72.  On 22 Feb 72, 
the suspended reduction was vacated due to the applicant’s 
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was reduced to 
the rank of AB, suspended until 15 Aug 72.  He was permanently 
reduced to the rank of AB by Special Court-Martial Order 16, 
dated 17 May 72.   

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He submitted a response stating he took pride in every job he 
was assigned but the last job was the worst assignment he had in 
the Air Force.  Though he was drafted by the Army while in high 
school, he chose the Air Force so he could graduate.  He was 
promoted while overseas but did not receive the certificate 
since it was approved just prior to his return stateside.  It 
was after his return that the first sergeant was determined he 
never receive the promotion or the certificate.  He admits he 
went AWOL and agreed to the court-martial but states that it was 
the lesser of two evils given the stress from the first 
sergeant. 

Since that time, he has worked for the State of South Carolina 
for almost 30 years.  His superiors, other employees and the 
prisoners treated him with more respect than he received from 
the first sergeant.  

He further states that his work record while in the Air Force, 
other than that one assignment, was outstanding.  He hopes the 
Board will reconsider his discharge rank and if deciding the 
rank should not be sergeant, at least return him back to the 
rank of airman first class which is the rank he achieved before 
the promotion to sergeant.  

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 an error or injustice.  We note 
that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or 
otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction.  Rather, in 
accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), 
actions by this Board are limited to corrections to the record 
to reflect actions taken by the reviewing officials and action 
on the sentence of the court-martial for the purpose of 
clemency.  We find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s 
service characterization and reduction in rank, which had its 
basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part of the 
sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded 
the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ).  We have considered the applicant’s overall 
quality of service, the court-martial conviction which 
precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses 
to which he was convicted.  However, we do not find the evidence 
presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s 
post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was 
discharged.  Aside from the administrative corrections note 
above, we find no basis to grant the additional 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01509 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Jun 14
	Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Aug 14.