RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00811 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

It is unjust to not upgrade his discharge because he voluntarily 
served his country and did nothing wrong while in uniform or on 
duty to dishonor his country. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 8 August 1969 in the grade of airman basic 
(E-1). After training, he served as an Inventory Management 
Specialist and was progressively promoted to the grade of 
sergeant (E-4) with a date of rank of 1 July 1971. 

 

On 25 October 1971, the applicant received Article 15 punishment 
for failure to go to the appointed place of duty on or about 
20 October 1971, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). His punishment consisted of reduction 
in grade to airman first class (E-3) suspended until 1 January 
1972, and restriction to the base for 30 days. On 3 December 
1971, the suspension of grade reduction was vacated due to him 
failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed 
time without authority on or about 29 November 1971 in violation 
of Article 86, UCMJ. On 28 February 1972, the applicant received 
Article 15 punishment for being disorderly on station at the USO 
Club on or about 11 February 1972 in violation of Article 134 
UCMJ. He received punishment of a reprimand and restriction to 
the limits of the base for 14 days. 


 

On 2 April 1973, the applicant was convicted by civil court for 
petty theft. On 20 June 1973, the applicant entered a plea of 
guilty to a charge of forcible rape in the Superior Court of 
California, County of Yuba. He was subsequently sentenced to 
imprisonment for a period of six months to life. 

 

On 17 August 1973, the applicant’s commander recommended the 
applicant for discharge due to his civil court conviction for 
forcible rape, his civil conviction of petty theft and for 
uttering worthless checks. 

 

On 5 December 1973, a Board of Officers recommended the applicant 
be discharged for misconduct with an undesirable character of 
service. A legal review on 24 January 1974 indicates a 
recommendation of approval of the discharge board’s findings and 
recommendations. On 1 March 1974, the discharge authority 
approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant be 
discharged with an undesirable character of service under the 
provisions of Air Force Manuel 39-12, Chapter 2, Section C, 
paragraph 2-23. 

 

On 1 March 1974, the applicant was discharged from active duty 
with an UOTHC discharge. He served 3 years, 6 months, and 
28 days on active duty. 

 

On 25 February 1975 and 5 May 1978, the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s 
requests to upgrade his characterization of discharge. 

 

On 11 June 1979, the applicant’s appeal for a rehearing by the 
AFDRB of his request to upgrade his discharge was returned 
without action due to the fact that no new evidence was 
presented. The AFDRB indicated that if the applicant wanted to 
physically appear before the AFDRB, a rehearing would be granted. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an 
Investigation Report (Exhibit C). 

 

On 27 July 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit 
comments about his post service activities and in response to the 
FBI Report (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has 
received no response. 

 

On 9 August 2011, the applicant responded indicating he has 
completed several rehabilitative courses, underwent mental 
evaluations, completed a two-year college degree, and has become 
a Christian since his discharge. He hopes and prays that enough 
time has passed for his misconduct to be forgiven. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

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 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. We considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not 
find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting 
the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00811 in Executive Session on 29 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 The following documentary evidence pertaining to 
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00811 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 11, w/atch. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. FBI Report. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jul 11, w/atch. 

Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Aug 11, w/atchs. 


 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair