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