RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03326 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was never informed he was going to be discharged with an 
UOTHC discharge. He was told he would receive a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge. To his knowledge he was never 
prosecuted or charged with a crime. 

 

He was aware of individuals involved with drugs. He assisted 
the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and the Las Vegas 
Police Department Drug Task Force in gathering evidence and the 
subsequent prosecution of those involved. 

 

Due to death threats on his life he was removed from the base, 
discharged and advised to leave the state of Nevada. He showed 
great strength of character and courage in testifying against 
those involved in illegal drug use. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 19 Feb 86, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 19 Jan 90, court-martial charges were preferred against the 
applicant for violation of Articles 80 and 112a, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). On 8 May 90, after consulting with 
counsel, the applicant requested he be discharged from the Air 
Force in accordance with (IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen in-lieu of trial by court-martial. For a 
full accounting of the offenses, see DD Form 458, Charge Sheet 
at Exhibit B. 

 

On 14 May 90, the 57th Aircraft Generation Squadron commander 
(57 AGS/CC) reviewed the applicant’s request for discharge in-
lieu of trial by court-martial and recommended the 554th Combat 


Support Group commander (554 CSG/CC) approve the applicant’s 
request with a recommendation to discharge the applicant from 
the Air Force with an UOTHC discharge. 

 

On 17 May 90, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed 
the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge 
and recommended the 554 CSG/CC accept the applicant’s request 
for discharge in-lieu of trial by court-martial and forward to 
the General Courts-Martial (GCM) convening authority with a 
recommendation to discharge the applicant from the Air Force 
with an UOTHC discharge. The 554 CSG/CC reviewed the 
applicant’s request for discharge in-lieu of trial by court-
martial and recommended the GCM convening authority accept the 
applicant’s request. 

 

On 11 Jun 90, the 554th Operations Support Wing/SJA reviewed the 
case file and forwarded it to the Tactical Fighter Weapons 
Center commander (TFWC/CC) and recommended he approve the 
applicant’s request for discharge in-lieu of trial by court-
martial. 

 

On 22 Jun 90, the TFWC/CC approved the applicant’s request for 
discharge in-lieu of trial by court-martial. On 27 Jun 90, the 
applicant was discharged with service characterized as under 
other than honorable conditions in the grade of senior airman. 
He served four years, 4 months and 9 days of total active 
service. 

 

On 27 Feb 13, the applicant was offered an opportunity to 
provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving 
the service (Exhibit C). By letter, dated 18 Mar 13, the 
applicant states he is a good moral person, lives a pro law life 
and has never been in trouble. He was a plant manager for 
18 years in Lynchburg, Virginia, for Parker Hannifin Corporation 
with approximately 400 employees who worked for him. He is a 
law abiding citizen and served his country proudly. 

 

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a 
personal statement, character reference letters and various 
other documentation associated with his request. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 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. While the applicant 
contends that he was never informed he was going to be 
discharged with service characterized as UOTHC, in his 8 May 
1990 request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial to 
the commander he acknowledged that, “I understand that if this 
request is approved I may be discharged under other than 
honorable conditions, regardless of your recommendation.” In 
the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge 
based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence 
presented is sufficient 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03326 in Executive Session on 9 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

Member 

 Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03326 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 12 w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated, 18 Mar 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair