RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04232

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
characterization of service be upgraded to honorable or at least 
general, under honorable conditions.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not granted a quick and speedy trial by court-martial.  
Instead, he was given menial tasks to perform with no income for 
approximately nine to ten months.  He was not restricted or 
confined but it had the same effect because he had no income.  
He finally conceded defeat and accepted the discharge because he 
could not take that kind of treatment any longer.  He lost 
several months of pay and lost all his accrued leave and his 
veteran’s benefits.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  According to documents extracted from his military personnel 
record the applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
on 12 March 1984.  

2.  On 14 January 1987, court-martial charges were preferred 
against the applicant, alleging that he presented a false claim 
by failing to disclose that he had received $1,850.00 in advance 
payments in conjunction with his Temporary Duty (TDY) 
assignment.  He was also charged with theft of $1,850.00, 
resulting from the overpayment of the TDY funds due to his 
concealing receipt of advance payments upon the completion of 
his TDY.  

3.  On 30 March 1987,  after consultation with legal counsel, 
the applicant submitted a letter of request for discharge under 
the provisions of AFM 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term 
of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency 
and Hardship, January 3, 1977, Chapter 4, in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  In the letter, the applicant confirmed he 
understood the elements of the offenses as well as received 
copies of the documents pertaining to the offenses with which he 
was charged.  He further stated that he understood that if his 
request was approved he may be discharged under other than 
honorable conditions.  

4.  On 3 April 1987, the applicant’s commander recommended the 
request for discharge be approved and the applicant be furnished 
an under than honorable conditions discharge.  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 30 April 1987, and credited with 3 years, 1 month 
and 19 days of active duty service.  

5.  On 7 December 1998, the applicant submitted an appeal for 
upgrade of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board 
(AFDRB).  The applicant was offered and declined a personal 
appearance before the AFDRB.  The AFDRB found no evidence to 
substantiate the applicant’s contention that he was unjustly 
accused of charges which led to his discharge.  They concluded 
that the applicant’s 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 provided full administrative due 
process.  The applicant did not establish the existence of 
factors rendering his discharge improper or inequitable and no 
such factors were discovered by the AFDRB.  On 24 May 1999 the 
applicant was advised that since his case was denied by the 
AFDRB he had the right to appeal, in person, to the AFDRB or 
submit an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of 
Military Records (AFBCMR).  

6.  On 2 April 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to 
submit comments regarding his post service activities 
(Exhibit C).  To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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 in 
this application.

________________________________________________________________

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 
in Executive Session on 29 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
      , Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04232 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 24 August 2012 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 April 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762






Dear: 

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 
1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04232.

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board 
determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or 
injustice.  Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




				                                   
				                                   Chief Examiner
				                                   Air Force Board for Correction
				                                   of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings









 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC


Office of the Assistant Secretary