RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00427

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The crime he committed in Sep 90 was an isolated incident.  The 35 years of a clean record prior to that incident, and the 21 years since without it once being repeated would be enough to convince anyone that his behavior in Sep 90 was not normal for him.  He would like to join his local Air National Guard detachment.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 7 Feb 77.  

On 24 Sep 90, the applicant was arrested for assault with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary.  

On 26 Sep 91, the applicant was convicted in a civilian court of law of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do grievous bodily injury and second degree burglary, for which he was sentenced to a total of nine years in confinement for his conviction.  

On 3 Oct 91, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge for misconduct.  The reason for this action was the applicant burglarized the car of a civilian female in a parking lot.  When the owner arrived at the vehicle, the applicant assaulted her by placing a knife to her neck in an attempt to kidnap her.  In several instances he threatened to “cut” the victim if she didn’t cooperate.  

On 30 Apr 92, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC for misconduct, and was credited with 17 years, 6 months and 5 days active service.  

On 22 Sep 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge to honorable, reason for discharge, and reenlistment (RE) code.  The AFDRB found neither the evidence of record nor the evidence provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety which would justify a change of discharge.  

On 18 Oct 13, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  In response, the applicant provides an extended personal statement, several recent character references, and several older character references.  He reiterates his contention that his personal character before and after his crime have been excellent and warrant clemency (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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 in the discharge processing.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was 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 regulations, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offense committed.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time.  While the Board notes the applicant completed his term of incarceration and has apparently lived his life as a law-abiding citizen since his discharge, Congress’ intent in setting up the Veterans Benefits Program was to express thanks for Veterans’ personal sacrifice, separations from family, facing hostile enemy action, and suffering financial hardship.  It would be unfair to all those who served honorably to extend those Veterans benefits to someone who committed crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty.  For these reasons, this Board very carefully weighs requests to upgrade the character of a discharge and, in doing so, carefully considers whether the impact of an applicant’s contributions to his or her community are substantial enough for us to conclude they overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged.  Furthermore, we also very carefully considered whether or not an upgrade of the discharge would create a larger injustice to those who served under honorable conditions and earned the characterization of service sought by the applicant.  While the applicant has presented supporting statements indicating he has apparently made a successful post-service transition, we do not find the documentation provides sufficient to conclude we should upgrade the applicant’s discharge at this time.  In this respect, we note that while the supporting statements he provides indicate the author’s admiration for the applicant and the way he has lived his life since separation, these statements do not give us any sense of the degree of the impact of his presence in the community and if he impact is so meritorious that we could conclude an upgrade of his discharge would not constitute an injustice to those who have earned this characterization of service.  While we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to grant the requested relief, the applicant retains the right to request reconsideration of this decision if he provides new evidence.  This could be in the form of statements from community leaders specifically describing how his efforts in the community have impacted others.  We also note the applicant has petitioned the Governor of Oklahoma seeking a pardon.  Should he be successful in his endeavor, the Board could also reconsider his application on the basis of new evidence.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the applicant be denied. 

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00427 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  Dr. Henningsen voted to correct the records, but does not desire to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Oct 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair