under 

other 

than 

conditions 

(UOTHC) 

honorable 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00741 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
    
 
   
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His 
characterization of discharge be upgraded to honorable.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1.    He  meritoriously  served  his  country  for  one  full  tour  and 
was  given  an  honorable  discharge  but  his  second  discharge  was 
under  other  than  honorable  conditions  because  he  was 
unjustifiably charged with possession of drugs.  He was offered 
an  under  other  than  honorable  discharge  and,  unknowingly, 
accepted  the  offer  thinking  he  would  be  given  a  general  (under 
honorable conditions) discharge because of his good record.  He 
was told his discharge would be changed to honorable in so many 
years.   
 
2.  After his discharge from the Air Force he worked for a bank 
then a pigment plant in East St. Louis until he was gunned down 
and  paralyzed.    He  has  several  military  related,  service 
connected problems from the time he was in the military but has 
been denied veterans benefits because of the characterization of 
his discharge.  He is confined to a wheelchair, his father has 
passed away, and his mother is ill.   
 
The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  documents  in  support  of  his 
request.   
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  initially  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on 
1 September 1972 and was progressively promoted to the grade of 
Sergeant  (Sgt),  E-4,  with  a  date  of  rank  of  01  November  1974.  
He  was  released  from  active  duty  with  an  honorable 
characterization  of  service  and  credited  with  completing 
3 Years,  3  months  and  18  days  of  active  duty  service.    He 
reentered  the  Regular  Air  Force  for  his  second  tour  of  active 
duty on 18 December 1975.   

 
On 2 March 1978, the applicant sold 60.43 grams of marijuana for 
$120.00 to a special agent and an unnamed source.  The sale took 
place in the applicant’s on-base quarters.  In the course of the 
investigation  into  the  marijuana  sale,  sometime  in  July  1978, 
the  applicant  threatened  the  life  of  a  witness,  telling  him  if 
he were to testify against the applicant he would be killed.   
 
On 17 August 1978, the applicant, after consultation with legal 
counsel,  submitted  a  letter  of  request  for  a  general  discharge 
under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, 
Misconduct,  Resignation,  or  Request  for  Discharge  for  the  Good 
of  the  Service  and  Procedures  for  the  Rehabilitation  Program, 
September 1, 1966, section F., in lieu of further processing by 
court-martial.    In  the  letter,  the  applicant  pointed  out  that 
the marijuana sale was an isolated incident; he had no previous 
nonjudicial  or  judicial  punishments  in  almost  six  years  of 
service;  and  his  conduct  was  good  ever  since  March  1978,  the 
time of the offense.  He asserted that if he were convicted by 
court-martial,  he  would  be  required  to  cross-train  into  a  new 
career  field  and  that  outcome  would  not  be  in  his  or  the  Air 
Force’s best interest.   
 
On  6  September  1978,  the  applicant’s  commander  recommended  the 
request  for  discharge  be  approved  based  on  the  seriousness  of 
the  applicant’s  recent  misconduct  and  the  apparent  failure  of 
continued  rehabilitation  efforts  and  his  seriously  questionable 
future  potential.    The  commander  stated  the  applicant’s 
continued presence in the organization was not conducive to good 
order  and  discipline  and  recommended  the  applicant  be  given  a 
discharge  with  an  under  other  than  honorable  conditions 
characterization of service.  
 
Subsequent  to  the  file  being  found  legally  sufficient,  the 
discharge  authority  approved  the  request  for  discharge  and 
directed  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under  other  than 
honorable conditions characterization of service.  The applicant 
was  released  from  active  duty  on  7  November  1978,  and  credited 
with 2 years, 10 months and 20 days of active duty service.  
 
On  6  April  1979,  the  applicant  submitted  an  appeal  for  upgrade 
of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB).  
The  applicant  was  offered  and  declined  a  personal  appearance 
before  the  DRB,  with  counsel.    The  board  found  no  evidence  to 
substantiate  the  applicant’s  contention  that  his  discharge  was 
too  harsh.    His  prior  service  was  considered  as  being  very 
favorable,  however,  the  Board  was  not  persuaded  that  it 
overshadowed his misconduct, including the transfer of marijuana 
(although  the  applicant  claimed  special  consideration  be  given 
that  this  was  an  isolated  instance)  and  communicating  a  threat 
to  kill.    On  13  August  1979,  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  the  applicant  was 

 

2 

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.  The applicant did 
not  establish  the  existence  of  factors  rendering  his  discharge 
improper  or  inequitable  and  no  such  factors  were  discovered  by 
the Board.   
 
On 30 August 1979 the applicant was advised that since his case 
was  denied  by  the  AFDRB  he  had  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  Air 
Force  Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  (AFBCMR).    The 
applicant  submitted  a  request  for  correction  of  his  records  to 
the AFBCMR.  His request was considered and denied by the Board, 
on  19  February  1981.    For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and 
circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of 
the  decision  by  the  previous  Board,  see  the  Record  of 
Proceedings at Exhibit B.   
 
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  10  July  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).  
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.  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. 
 

 

3 

________________________________________________________________ 
 
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-2012-00741 in Executive Session on 2 October 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 20 February 2012. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report  
 
 
 
 
  
                                   Panel Chair 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 

 

4