RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04266 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: To the best of his knowledge the characterization of his discharge from the Air Force was based solely on the verbal charge from his ex-spouse that he sexually assaulted their five year old nephew. No investigation was conducted to prove or disprove these charges. He denied the charges at that time. He was provided with a psychiatric evaluation and the psychologist found him to be free of mental defect, disease or derangement and stated, in writing, that the alleged sexual charge may have been made up by his ex-spouse in an attempt to assure that he was not awarded custody of their daughter. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of his ex-spouse’s written statement and a copy of the psychiatric evaluation dated 2 February 1982. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 November 1979. He was progressively promoted to the grade of Senior Airman, E-4. On 18 February 1982, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2; section B, paragraph 2-15b. The reasons for the proposed action were; dishonored checks complaints, alleged assault of ex-wife and sexually molested his five year old nephew. The applicant’s commander recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to present his case before an administrative discharge board, consult counsel, and submit statements on his behalf. The applicant did not indicate whether he would present his case before the administrative discharge board, consult counsel, provide a statement on his behalf or waive his right to any of the above actions. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The applicant was discharged on 29 March 1982 and was credited with serving 2 years, 4 months and 23 days of active duty service. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report which is at Exhibit C. A copy of the FBI Investigative Report was forwarded to the applicant on 19 April 2012, along with a request for post- service documentation for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant has not filed a timely petition; it has been 29 years since his discharge from the Air Force. The applicant cites at the time of his discharge he was not advised of the consequences of his type of discharge, however, on 18 February 1982 he signed the letter of notification that he understood the approval of his discharge could result in him being given a discharge certificate less favorable than an honorable discharge. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete AFPC/DPSOS 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 10 February 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 during the discharge process. 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, or unduly harsh. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Moreover, it appears that he has not overcome the behavior traits which caused the discharge based on the report provided by the FBI. In view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application BC-2011-04266 in Executive Session on 7 June 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 October 2011. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Report Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 24 January 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 February 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 April 2012. Panel Chair