RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05603
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was attacked by his subordinate because she was upset that he 
was talking to another woman.  Subsequently, he was charged with 
assault.  He was only protecting himself and did not initiate or 
want to fight.  
The applicant did not provide any evidence in support of his 
request.  
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Feb 82, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.  
The applicant’s military personnel records did not contain a copy 
of his discharge package.  Therefore, the following information 
was extracted from the AFHQ Form 0-2077, Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record dated 12 Dec 86:  
On or about 16 May 82, the applicant was derelict in the 
performance of his duties in that he failed to ensure the dining 
hall was secure, upon closing as it was his duty to do.  For this 
misconduct, he was given Nonjudiical Punishment (NJP) under 
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) consisting of 
forfeiture of $100 pay per month for two months and reduction in 
grade to sergeant (suspended until 25 Nov 82).
On or about 23 Oct 83, the applicant assaulted a subordinate by 
striking her in the face and body with his fists.  For this 
misconduct, he was given NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, consisting of 
forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months and reduction in 
grade to sergeant.
On 8 Jun 84, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent 
to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 5-47b, Misconduct – Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order 
and Discipline.  The specific reason for the proposed action was 
the applicant's Article 15s for failing to secure a building and 
assaulting a female under his supervision.  Before recommending 
discharge the commander noted he reviewed the applicant’s records.  
However, his prolonged misbehavior and intermittent substandard 
performance lead him to recommend discharge rather than further 
rehabilitation.  The commander noted the applicant’s four Article 
15s and Letter of Reprimand should have provided sufficient 
impetus for rehabilitation.  Additionally, the commander noted 
that further rehabilitation attempts would not be any more 
effective than past corrective actions had been.  Specifically, 
the applicant’s last incident (assault) indicated the applicant 
was not fit to supervise and therefore, not fit to be retained in 
the Air Force.  The commander did not recommend probation and 
rehabilitation.  
On 27 Sep 84, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally 
sufficient to support discharge and recommended the applicant 
receive an UOTHC discharge without the offer of probation and 
rehabilitation.
On 19 Oct 84, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge.  On 26 Oct 84, the applicant was discharged for 
Misconduct – Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline with 
service characterized as UOTHC in the grade of senior airman.  He 
was credited with 12 years, 1 month and 12 days of total active 
service.  
On 15 Aug 85, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application 
for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of 
the United States, requesting his UOTHC discharge be upgrade to 
general (under honorable conditions).   
On 12 Dec 86, the AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s 
appeal.  The AFDRB found that the discharge was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority and he was provided full administrative due process.  On 
8 Jan 87, the applicant was notified of the AFDRB’s decision.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) indicated that on the basis of the information 
provided, they were able to locate an arrest record. 


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 on the basis of 
clemency; however, after considering his overall record of 
service, the infractions which led to his administrative 
separation and the lack of post-service information we are not 
persuaded that an upgrade is warranted on that basis.  In view of 
the above and absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis upon which 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-2013-05603 in Executive Session on 18 Sep 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 12.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Personnel Records.



3