Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05304
Original file (BC 2012 05304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05304
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he applied for the discharge he was told he would receive a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was totally 
surprised when he received the UOTHC character of service.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Forms 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, issued in 
conjunction with his 21 Oct 71, 21 Oct 75, and 
18 Jan 78 separations.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, the applicant reenlisted on, 
22 Oct 75, for a period of four years.  

On 7 Dec 77, after consulting with counsel, the applicant 
requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial 
by court-martial.  On 13 Dec 77, the squadron commander 
recommended that the applicant’s request be approved.  He noted 
that his misconduct was of such a nature that his expeditious 
separation was in the best interest of the Air Force, himself, 
and the base community.  For a full list of the offenses, please 
see the staff judge advocates recommendation letter, dated 
13 Dec 17 at Exhibit B.  On that same date, the staff judge 
advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended 
the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge.  On 29 Dec 77, the 
discharge authority approved the UOTHC discharge.

On 18 Jan 78, the applicant was discharged by reason of good of 
the service, in lieu of court-martial, with service 
characterized as UOTHC.  He was credited with 9 years, 8 months, 
and 20 days of active duty service.  

________________________________________________________________

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, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge on 
the basis of clemency; however, based on the applicant’s overall 
record of service, the egregious misconduct which led to his 
administrative separation and the lack of post-service 
documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the 
characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of 
clemency.  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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-05304 in Executive Session on 27 Aug 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Although Mr. Parker chaired the panel, in view of his 
unavailability, Ms. Cannon has signed as Acting Panel Chair.  
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.




                                   Acting Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00131

    Original file (BC-2006-00131.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Jan 78, the applicant amended his original conditional waiver and waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less than a general discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 06. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Feb 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202300

    Original file (0202300.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    --He received a letter of counseling on 10 Jan 77 for not reporting for duty. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general. We note the applicant received three Article 15s, several LORs and counseling sessions, and substance abuse rehabilitation to no avail.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00424

    Original file (BC-2006-00424.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Apr 74, in the grade of airman basic (E-1), for a period of six years. Punishment imposed was a reduction in grade to airman (E-2) and forfeiture of $100 for one month; (10) O/a 3 and 4 Apr 78, applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go to his prescribed place of duty on time. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01628

    Original file (BC-2009-01628.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01628 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows: 1. In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to identify with an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03220A

    Original file (BC-2005-03220A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additional AFBCMR applications resulted in the applicant’s record being corrected, on 25 Feb 04, to show he was tendered a Regular appointment effective 8 Feb 81, and that he served in the grade of major until his retirement in that grade on 1 Jul 93. The ROP contained factual errors and did not even come close to summarizing his remarks and the new evidence he provided. The record contains a letter dated January 15, 2003, to applicant from AFPC/DPOC informing him that as a result of his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04523

    Original file (BC-2012-04523.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04523 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of his service was contrary to the provisions of the governing...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01788

    Original file (BC-2013-01788.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01788 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 9 Jan 1981, his commander recommended the applicant’s request for separation be approved. On 9 Dec 2013, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to provide information...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02855

    Original file (BC 2013 02855.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board concluded the evidence presented was sufficiently credible enough to substantiate upgrading the discharge to a general discharge; however, his misconduct and substandard performance did not warrant an Honorable discharge. While the Air Force Discharge Review Board was compelled to upgrade the applicant’s under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to general (under honorable conditions) discharge, we find no basis to recommend a further upgrade of the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02661

    Original file (BC-2006-02661.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 29 Nov 74. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2006-02661 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Oct 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00455

    Original file (BC-2007-00455.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting change to his under honorable conditions (general) discharge The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his letter dated 1 Apr 07, the applicant requested an extension in order to reply to the Air Force...