RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02111

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served over six years with good behavior.  It is unfair to 
characterize his entire period of service based upon an isolated 
incident unrelated to his military service and performance. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Feb 88, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 12 May 94, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intention to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for 
commission of a serious offense—sexual perversion.  The specific 
reasons for the discharge action were from 1 Mar 92 through 
15 Apr 93, the applicant had a sexual relationship (sexual 
intercourse, oral sex and fondling) with a female under the age 
of 16.

In the notification for discharge, the commander cited the 
following derogatory information: the applicant received five 
Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for conspiring to extort money, 
failure to notify supervisor when not in the local area during 
an exercise, failure to obey an order or regulation, failure to 
attend mobility and chemical warfare training, presenting a 
check with insufficient funds.  He received a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and 
criminal record (CR) for having unlawful sexual contact with 
underage individuals.  He was counseled on several occasions to 
cease all activities in relation to the victim.  Despite all the 
warnings the applicant persisted in what he knew was illegal 
activity.

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the action.

On 2-3 Jun 94, a discharge board convened and ultimately 
recommended the applicant be furnished UOTHC discharge without 
probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient and recommended discharge with an UOTHC discharge 
without P&R.

On 27 Jul 94, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished an UOTHC discharge.  On 28 Jul 94, the applicant was 
so discharged and was credited with six years, five months, and 
three days of total active service.

On 17 Jan 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  In response, he states he served over six years 
with good behavior, to include two tours in the Persian Gulf.  
He was young, immature, reckless, and made mistakes.  There were 
some personal reasons for his inexcusable behavior back then; 
upon returning from the Gulf, he learned his fiancée had been 
dating a friend of his.  As for the extortion accusation, his 
car keys were taken without his permission and his car was 
damaged.  He approached the individual who he believed was 
responsible but due to having no proof was subsequently 
reprimanded for attempted extortion.  He believes this incident 
contributed to the negative characterization at his discharge 
hearing.  His behavior was subject to an administrative 
proceeding and not a punitive one, even though it had a punitive 
effect.  He was punished by the local authorities for his 
alleged crime, which never implicated the Air Force in any way.  
He did not violate anyone's right of refusal, or force anyone to 
do anything against their will.  He treated the young woman like 
the adult she was pretending to be, and despite that old 
history, they are friends today.  After discharge, he worked 
locally learning to repair appliances before returning to 
Pittsburgh and entering college for Information Technology (IT).  
While attending school, he worked in IT and sales.  He made some 
mistakes when he was younger, but they were relatively isolated 
and small in scope, compared to the vast bulk of his time in the 
Air Force. 

The applicant’s complete response is at 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, to include his rebuttal 
response, 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 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.  We considered upgrading the discharge based on 
clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is 
sufficient for 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.

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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02111 in Executive Session on 27 Feb 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

?
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02111 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Email Communique’, Applicant, dated 23 Jan 14. 




                                   Panel Chair