RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02027

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He regrets that his actions as a teenager has cost him a career 
in the Air Force that he wanted since he was 14 years old.  He 
is now 40 years old and a responsible adult.  He appreciates the 
Board’s consideration of upgrading his discharge.  

The applicant did not provide any additional documentation in 
support of his request.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
14 August 1991.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of 
Senior Airman, E-4.  

2.  On 22 June 1993, the applicant was notified by his commander 
that she was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force 
under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-47 and 5-48, 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, substantiated 
by his frequent involvement in behavior that was inconsistent 
with acceptable Air Force standards as evidenced by 
administrative punishments he received for specific incidents of 
two failures to go, an alleged rape, writing a bad check, 
disobeying a lawful order, three failures to appear at appointed 
place of duty, failure of a career development course unit 
review exercise, failure to report for appointed time for 
training and misconduct involving a civilian conviction.  The 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge 
and was advised of his right to present his case before an 
administrative review board, consult counsel, and submit 
statements in his behalf.  The applicant waived his right to a 
hearing before an administrative review board and to submit 
statements in his behalf, but opted to consult counsel.  
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 without probation and 
rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 21 July 1993, 
and was credited with serving 1 year, 11 months and 18 days of 
active duty service.  

3.  On 20 February 1995, the applicant submitted an appeal for 
upgrade of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board 
(AFDRB).  He was offered and declined a personal appearance 
before the AFDRB.  The AFDRB found that neither evidence of 
record, nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an 
inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of 
discharge.  The AFDRB states that the applicant contends his 
discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh, that the 
civilian conviction he received did not relate to his work 
performance and should not have reflected on his type of 
discharge; and he has suffered enough stress through the court 
system and probation.  The record indicates the applicant 
received, for misconduct, an Article 15 with a suspended 
reduction that was later vacated and he was reduced in rank; 
three Letters of Reprimand; five Letters of Counseling; a Memo 
for Record and a civilian conviction.  The AFDRB opined that 
through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample 
opportunities to change his negative behavior.  They concluded 
the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected 
of all military members.  The Under Other Than Honorable 
Conditions discharge characterization received by the applicant 
was found to be appropriate.

4.  The AFDRB further stated they realized the applicant’s pride 
he takes in being a former member of the United States military; 
however, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was 
suggested or found in the course of the record review/hearing.  
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.  On 29 July 1996, the applicant was 
advised that since his case was denied by the AFDRB he had the 
right to a personal appearance with counsel and a right to 
submit an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of 
Military Records (AFBCMR).  

5.  On 12 December 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.

________________________________________________________________

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 28 January 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-02027:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 April 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 December 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair