RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03886 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was jumped while in a bar one night due to racial profiling. 
Because of this incident he received an UOTHC discharge. Prior 
to this incident he received a good conduct medal and an 
outstanding unit award. Additionally, he was trained in several 
different positions and had high evaluation scores. He was not 
dealt with according to his good actions but rather judged on 
one item that was not his fault. 

 

He was not aware that he could request a change of discharge 
until a few months ago. He did not pursue looking into a change 
of discharge because he felt he was treated unfairly. 

 

In support of his request the applicant submits a personal 
statement and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
15 October 1986 and was progressively promoted to the grade of 
Sergeant (Sgt), E-4, with a date of rank of 29 March 1989. 

 

On 3 September 1987, the applicant received an Article 15 
nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey a lawful order. He 
was issued a lawful order to pull his privately owned vehicle 
(POV) over for a random entry point inspection at the main gate 
of the base. He failed to obey the order. His punishment 
consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of Airman Basic 
(AB), E-1. 

 

On 13 July 1990, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) for failing to attend Commander’s Call. 


 

On 19 July 1990, the applicant received a second Article 15 when 
he was found to be derelict in the performance of his duties, 
for failing to report promptly to his Temporary Duty (TDY) 
assignment and attempting to deceive the United States Air Force 
by submitting a travel voucher he knew to be false. His 
punishment consisted of forfeiture of $200.00 pay, and a 
suspended reduction to the grade of Airman First Class, (A1C), 
E-3. In addition, the applicant’s Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) 
status was vacated on 20 July 1990. 

 

On 26 July 1990, the applicant received a second LOR for failing 
to attend a scheduled mandatory military appointment. 

 

On 26 December 1990, the applicant received a Letter of 
Counseling (LOC) for writing an insufficient funds check in the 
amount of $125.00 to the Base Exchange on an account he knew was 
closed. 

 

On 16 February 1991, the applicant received a second LOC because 
his Noncommissioned Officers Club account was 60 days overdue. 

 

On 30 April 1991, the applicant received a third LOC for failing 
to keep current the state registration for his privately owned 
vehicle. 

 

On 24 September 1991, the applicant pled guilty to attempted 
assault and battery in a state district court. He was ordered 
to pay $75.00 in fines, $120.00 in costs and serve 183 days of 
probation. 

 

On 21 October 1991, the applicant was notified that his 
commander was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force 
for discreditable involvement with military or civil 
authorities, under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 
39-10 Administrative Separation of Airmen paragraph 5-47a. The 
specific reason for the proposed action was; the applicant’s 
continued misconduct after the unit’s numerous attempts to 
rehabilitate him indicated he lacked the potential and desire to 
serve satisfactorily. His retention on active duty in a 
probationary status was inconsistent with the maintenance of 
good order and discipline. 

 

On 21 October 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and his right to present his case 
before an administrative discharge board, be represented by 
counsel, and submit statements on his own behalf. The applicant 
waived his right to present his case before an administrative 
discharge board but opted to consult counsel as well as submit a 
statement on his behalf. 

 

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 
released from active duty on 3 December 1991 and was credited 
with 4 years, 1 month and 19 days of active duty service, of 
which 1 year and 2 days were listed as Foreign Service. 

 

On 15 April 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal for upgrade 
of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB). 
The DRB concluded 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 that the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process. In view of the forgoing findings 
the Board further concluded there was no legal or equitable 
basis for upgrade of discharge, thus, the applicant’s discharge 
should not be changed. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report 
which is at Exhibit C. 

 

On 29 March 2012, a copy of the FBI Investigative report was 
forwarded to the applicant along with a request for post service 
documentation for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by reiterating his original contentions; 
however, he goes into further detail of the incidents leading up 
to his discharge as well as his post service experiences. He 
also provides two letters from friends in support of his post-
service life. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based 
on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel 
us 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 this application 
BC-2011-03886 in Executive Session on 30 May 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs dated 21 September 2011. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 29 March 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant w/atchs, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair