Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01788
Original file (BC-2013-01788.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01788
			COUNSEL:  NONE
    			HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He became an alcoholic while on active duty and was never 
offered treatment for his condition.  His alcoholism was not 
recognized as the main reason for his inability to perform to 
standards and he was not offered a hearing.  He served his 
country well until his illness.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Nov 1978, the applicant entered active duty.

On 23 Dec 1980, the applicant requested he be discharged in 
accordance with Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 39-12, Separation for 
Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation or Request for Discharge 
for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the 
Rehabilitation Program, in lieu of court-martial.  He 
acknowledged he understood that if his request was approved, he 
could receive an UOTHC discharge, be deprived of veterans’ 
benefits and that he may encounter substantial prejudice in 
civilian life.  He was afforded the opportunity to consult 
counsel.

On 9 Jan 1981, his commander recommended the applicant’s request 
for separation be approved.  The basis for the recommendation 
was that proceeding with court-martial at the time would serve 
no useful purpose and be detrimental to the judicial system.  
The applicant received two Article 15’s, was placed on the 
control roster, received several Letters of Counseling (LOC) and 
a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go and failure to 
repair.  He was also charged with Absent Without Leave (AWOL) 
and marijuana use.  The applicant completed the drug 
rehabilitation course and all reasonable efforts to remedy the 
applicant’s failure to conform to Air Force standards were 
unsuccessful.  For a detailed list of charges, please see the 
commander’s letter in Exhibit B.  

On 15 Jan 1981, the staff judge advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient.

On 13 Feb 1981, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as UOTHC.  

He served two years and three months.

On 12 Oct 1983, the Air Force Discharge Review Board disapproved 
the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. 

On 9 Dec 2013, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to 
provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving 
the service.  In response, the applicant states he was placed in 
a foster home as a child, was subjected to beatings, mental 
cruelty and various other forms of neglect.  His foster father, 
who served in the Army, used all his funds he obtained from his 
parents to purchase a home for his family.  His foster father 
was getting paid for having him until he reached adult age.  
After all the evil that was handed to him as a child, he still 
wanted to honor his country and his dead parents. He was 
psychologically disadvantaged due to his negative background and 
wants the upgrade so he can apply for a Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) loan to buy a home of his own.  He is not looking 
for vindication and would like his discharge to be upgraded.  

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 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, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service, the numerous 
infractions which led to his administrative separation and the 
lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an 
upgrade on this basis is warranted.  Therefore, in view of the 
above and 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 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 Docket Number BC-
2013-01788 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
         , Member
         , Member

The following documentary evidence in Docket Number BC-       
2013-01788 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Dec 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 2 Jan 2014.  
    



 
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00641

    Original file (BC-2013-00641.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    With the help of his attorney, he prepared all the necessary documentation to properly claim the SBP entitlement and submitted this information to DFAS. Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Her father enrolled in the SBP and subsequently elected maximum spouse and child coverage during an SBP open enrollment, and had a “Helpless Child.” Her mother predeceased her father by approximately...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00354

    Original file (BC 2014 00354.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Additionally, DPSID noted the following awards and decorations will be corrected administratively after final Board action: • PH • PWM • PUC, w/2BOLCs • Philippine Republic Presidential Unit Citation (PHRPUC) • ACPM, with one Bronze Service Star (APCM w/lBSS) • WWIIVM • ADSM, w/Overseas Clasp • PDM, with one Bronze Service Star (PDM w/1 BSS) • Good Conduct Medal (GCM) Based on information from the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR), the applicant initially entered the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01032

    Original file (BC-2003-01032.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His emotional volatility, alcohol and substance abuse, and immaturity really clouded his judgment. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00412

    Original file (BC-2013-00412.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He regrets everything he did while in the Air Force. 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. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00600

    Original file (BC-2013-00600.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also notified the applicant that he was recommending he receive an UOTHC discharge instead of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for misconduct was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discharge authority’s discretion. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05150

    Original file (BC 2012 05150.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He has worked with the government for over 24 years and has a flawless record of service. 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 relief sought on that basis. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 Mar 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01628

    Original file (BC-2012-01628.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01628 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 13 Jul 67, the 834 CSG/CC reviewed the case file and recommended the 9th Air Force commander (9 AF/CC) approve the applicant’s general (under honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04642

    Original file (BC 2013 04642.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04642 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude that his contributions to his community since leaving the service are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02630

    Original file (BC 2010 02630.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02630 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. In response to our request, applicant provided post-service information, which is attached at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03309

    Original file (BC 2013 03309.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    k. On 4 Apr 79, the applicant was in violation of AFR 35-10 and again failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. On 9 Nov 79, 22 Nov 79, 2 Dec 79 and 11 Dec 79, the applicant's commander received notice from American Express stating that the applicant's account was overdrawn. On 21 Jan 80, 5 Feb 80, 11 Feb 80, 14 Mar 80, 15 Mar 80 and 15 Apr 80, the applicant's commander received notice from AAFES stating that the applicant had written numerous dishonored checks.