RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01738

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to at least a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is a 62 year old homeless man with no medical benefits or 
family and has been incarcerated most of his life.  He was 
19 years old when he agreed to the BCD and he was not aware of 
the implications that were involved.  He has tried to have his 
discharge upgraded through the Discharge Review Board 
unsuccessfully.  He served his country faithfully in Vietnam.  
He saw his closest friend get hit by an incoming rocket that was 
trying to destroy aircraft.  He then turned to drugs as they 
were readily available.  There was not an opportunity for 
rehabilitation in Vietnam.  He was subject to racist assaults 
mentally and physically.  He served until he lost his courage 
and will. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
13 Apr 71.

According to the Special Court-Martial, dated 19 October 1973, 
the applicant was charged with the following specifications of 
violating Article 86 the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 
(UCMJ):

	a.  Specification 1:  On or about 18 Jun 73, without 
authority, he absented himself from his organization until on or 
about 18 Jul 73.

	b.  Specification 2:  On or about 19 Jul 73, without 
authority, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his 
appointed place of duty.

	c.  Specification 3:  On or about 23 Jul 73, without 
authority, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his 
appointed place of duty.

On 29 Mar 74, the applicant was furnished an under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and was credited with 2 
years, 7 months, and 22 days of active service, excluding time 
lost as indicated in Item 27 on his DD Form 214.  
 
On 11 Feb 82, the applicant appealed to the AFDRB to have his 
discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application.  
They concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority and he was 
provided full administrative due process.

On 23 Jul 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit C).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit D.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice with respect to the court-martial 
proceedings.  In accordance with 10 U.S.C § 1552, the Board may 
take "action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of 
clemency."  In this case, the applicant was tried by special 
court martial on 30 Aug 73.  A military judge alone presided 
over the special court-martial as the applicant requested.  The 
applicant was found guilty, in accordance with his plea, of two 
charges of being absent without leave, in violation of Article 
86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The military judge 
sentenced the applicant to a BCD, which the applicant requested.  
At the time of the special court-martial, the applicant was 
informed of the negative consequence that would result from the 
requested BCD, and was advised against it during the trial by 
his attorney.  On 28 Dec 73, the sentence of the special court-
martial was approved by the United States Court of Military 
Review.  The applicant was unable to be served at the conclusion 
of the review, because after receiving his BCD, but before the 
discharge was processed, he again went AWOL.  There is no error 
or injustice with the court-martial proceedings which would 
warrant upgrading the applicant's discharge characterization.
A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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, 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 convicted.  However, in 
the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-
service activities that would enable us to determine if his 
accomplishments since his discharge are sufficient to overcome 
the misconduct for which he was discharged, we find no basis 
upon which to favorably consider 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-2014-01738 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
	
	

The following documentary evidence was considered: 
	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 21 Jun 14.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 14.