Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00887
Original file (BC-2013-00887.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00887

		COUNSEL: NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a heart problem at the time of his induction that was not 
detected.  Due to his heart condition, he was not able to keep 
up with the strenuous lifestyle of the Air Force.  His attorney 
told him his discharge would be upgraded six months following 
his release from service.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 27 Sep 68.

The applicant’s commander initiated an action to discharge him 
because of his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature 
with civil or military authority.  The basis of this action was 
as follows:

	a.  On 22 Nov 68, the applicant’s commander issued him 
nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without authority from 
18 Nov 68 through 20 Nov 68.  His punishment consisted of seven 
days of correctional custody, forfeiture of $23.00 per month for 
one month, and a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1), 
which was suspended for 90 days.

	b.  On 13 Jan 69, the applicant’s commander vacated the 
suspended reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) due to 
him being absent without authority from 3 – 6 Jan 69.
	c.  On 24 Jan 69, the applicant’s commander issued him a 
second Article 15 under the UCMJ for being absent without 
authority from 3 Jan 69 through 6 Jan 69 and 13 Jan 69 through 
20 Jan 69.  His punishment consisted of confinement to 
correctional custody for 30 days and forfeiture of $51.00 per 
month for two months.

	d.  On 3 Feb 69, the applicant escaped from correctional 
custody in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ, and was later 
apprehended.  

It was also noted that subsequent to the initiation of the 
discharge action the applicant admitted to the Chief, 
Psychiatric Clinic, that he was a homosexual, a fact which was 
corroborated by the Office of Special Investigation (OSI).  
During the OSI investigation, the applicant stated “quite 
forthrightly that he is confessing that he is a homosexual at 
this point because he wants out of the service.”

On 14 Feb 69, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally 
sufficient.  

On 27 Feb 69, the discharge authority directed that the 
applicant be discharged and furnished an Undesirable Discharge. 

On 3 Mar 69, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and 
was credited with 4 months and 25 days of active service.

On 12 Oct 71, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
reviewed the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, but 
denied the request because the facts of record in his case did 
not warrant changing the type of discharge.  

On 3 Dec 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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 process.  Based on the available 
evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for frequent involvement 
of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  
He has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the 
characterization of his service was improper or contrary to the 
provisions of the governing directive.  While we note that the 
evidence of record indicates the applicant made a homosexual 
admission subsequent to the initiation of discharge proceedings, 
the basis for the discharge action was the applicant’s 
misconduct, not his homosexual admission.  Therefore, in view of 
the fact that the applicant’s misconduct, irrespective of his 
homosexual admission, formed more than an adequate basis for his 
UOTHC discharge, it would not be appropriate for this Board to 
upgrade the applicant’s characterization of service based on the 
repeal of the law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).  In 
the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicant’s 
discharge based on clemency.  However, in the absence of any 
evidence pertaining to the applicant’s activities since leaving 
the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
requested relief on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to 
upgrade the applicant’s Undesirable discharge.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-00887 in Executive Session on 23 Jan 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                  , Panel Chair
	                  , Member
	                  , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Dec 13, w/atch.





Panel Chair
3

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02873

    Original file (BC-2011-02873.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02873 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). However, according to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, he was furnished an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00509

    Original file (BC 2014 00509.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00509 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded. The applicant is requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable based on the repeal of the law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02655

    Original file (BC-2003-02655.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Aug 70, the base commander recommended approval of an undesirable discharge. On 18 Aug 70, the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” On 24 Aug 70, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as other than honorable. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00010

    Original file (BC-2011-00010.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    4) His UOTHC discharge characterization failed to reflect his honorable character in the Air Force, exemplified in his service record and in the recommendations of his superiors. His ex-wife’s testimony proved pivotal to the outcome of the proceedings; in which the BOI recommended a UOTHC discharge; and ignored his entire service record and the recommendations of his superiors, and belied his years of honorable service. _________________________________________________________________ THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04408

    Original file (BC-2011-04408.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04408 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. In this respect, we note that while the repeal of DADT provides a basis for correcting the records of certain affected service members, specific criteria must generally be met: (1) the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05269

    Original file (BC 2013 05269.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 10 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance pertaining to correction of military records requests resulting from the repeal of Title 10, Section 654, commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).” In a memorandum, dated 20 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense published guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge (the change should be to “Secretarial Authority”), requests to re-characterize the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04486

    Original file (BC-2011-04486.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    After considering all the evidence, the board found that she did commit homosexual acts and recommended she be separated with an honorable discharge. Her discharge from the Air Force was legally sufficient based on current policy at the time of her discharge making her narrative reason for separation an appropriate reason for discharge. Therefore, the Board majority recommends the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02432

    Original file (BC 2013 02432.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02432 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01735

    Original file (BC 2013 01735.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant is requesting his character of service, narrative reason for separation, RE and Separation codes be upgraded based on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Rather, an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the service member has not yet completed six months of service at the time of separation proceedings were initiated. Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2013-01735 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01767

    Original file (BC-2012-01767.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 10 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense issued guidance pertaining to correction of military records requests resulting from the repeal of Title 10, Section 654, commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).” In a memorandum, dated 20 Sep 11, the Under Secretary of Defense published guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge (the change should be to “Secretarial Authority”), requests to re- characterize...