RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05637

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
characterization of service be upgraded to at least general, 
under honorable conditions.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His previous years of service from May 1982 through May 1986 
were not taken into consideration during his final discharge in 
January 1990.  

In support of his request, the applicant indicated on the DD 
Form 149 that “documents are already filed,” however, there were 
no supporting documents submitted with his application.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  According to documents extracted from his military personnel 
record the applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
on 10 May 1982.  

2.  On 3 October 1989, the applicant was notified by his 
commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the 
Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-48, 
misconduct, (civilian conviction).  The specific reason for the 
proposed action was evidence of misconduct substantiated by the 
applicant’s 1 July 1989 arrest for possession of cocaine which 
resulted in a finding of guilty and a sentence of three days 
confinement in the county jail.  The notification letter also 
advised him of his right to:

	a.  consult legal counsel. 

	b.  present his case to an administrative discharge board, 

	c.  be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing

	d.  submit statements in his own behalf in addition to or 
in lieu of the board hearing

	e.  waive the above rights, however he must consult counsel 
before making the decision to waive any of his rights.  

3.  On 3 October 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and that he understood approval of the 
recommendation for his discharge could result in his receiving 
an other than honorable conditions separation.  He also 
acknowledged that military legal counsel was available to assist 
him.  On 4 October 1989, after consultation with military legal 
counsel, the applicant submitted a written statement offering a 
conditional waiver of his rights associated with an 
administrative discharge board hearing.  The waiver was 
contingent upon his receipt of no less than a general discharge 
if the recommendation for discharge was approved.  He 
acknowledged that he understood that if the convening authority 
or the separation authority rejected the waiver, the processing 
of his case would continue according to AFR 39-10.  He elected 
not to submit statement in his behalf.  

4.  On 31 October 1989, after legal review, the applicant’s 
commander rejected his offer of the conditional waiver.  The 
applicant was instructed to either submit an unconditional 
waiver or demand a board hearing within three duty days or he 
would be scheduled for a board hearing.  On 31 October 1989, the 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the rejection of his 
unconditional waiver but did not indicate whether he would 
submit an unconditional waiver or demand a board hearing.  

5.  On 28 November 1989, a board hearing was convened.  The 
board of officers recommended the applicant be separated with an 
under other than honorable conditions discharge, without 
probation and rehabilitation.  Subsequent to the file being 
found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the 
request for discharge and directed the applicant be discharged 
with an under other than honorable conditions characterization 
of service.  The applicant was released from active duty on 
9 January 1990, and credited with 7 years, 7 months and 6 days 
of active duty service.  

6.  On 29 August 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 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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

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 15 October 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05637 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 28 November 2012.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 August 2013.