Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00741
Original file (BC 2014 00741.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00741

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

His separation code be changed.

His reenlistment code be changed.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable and based on one incident of 
failure.  Since discharge he has had no further incidents, been 
a good citizen, worked steady for 25 years and had no record of 
criminal activities. 

He is a good person in a lot of pain that needs to be addressed.  
Upgrading his character of discharge will give him peace of mind 
and facilitate medical benefits through the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.  He implores the board to consider his plea.   

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Mar 
85.

On 31 May 85, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for violating Article 92, disobeying a lawful 
general regulation by drawing and aiming a weapon when it’s 
authorized use did not appear imminent.  He received a reduction 
of grade to airman first class and forfeiture of $189 dollars a 
month for one month. 

On 3 February 1989, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of 
trial by court-martial, indicating that after consulting with 
legal counsel, he understood that if his request were approved, 
he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and 
that it could deprive him of veterans benefits.

On 17 March 1989, the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial 
by court-martial on charges of committing indecent acts with a 
female under 16 years of age and taking indecent liberties with 
a female under 16 years of age, based on an ongoing series of 
illicit acts with his twelve-year-old step-daughter.  He was 
credited with 4 years and 12 days of active service.   

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 Apr 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


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 an 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.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on 
clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the 
applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to 
determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the 
service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct 
for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought. 


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-2014-00741 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin - Clemency.

						

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02478

    Original file (BC-2005-02478.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Headquarters Twenty-Second Air Force/JA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved. On 18 February 1990, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB reviewed the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01681

    Original file (BC 2014 01681.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 Dec 86, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 16 days of active service. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00884

    Original file (BC-2011-00884.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00884 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) be upgraded to honorable. The discharge authority recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge; however, the discharge process was deferred pending the outcome of a dual- action process on 9 Sep 85....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01160

    Original file (BC-2006-01160.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01160 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Oct 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Dishonorable Discharge be upgraded to a discharge that would qualify him for Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. Specifically, Section 1552(f)(1) permits the correction of a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04047

    Original file (BC-2010-04047.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04047 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04047 in Executive...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01640

    Original file (BC-2010-01640.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicant’s UOTHC discharge. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01640 in Executive Session on 7 Dec 10,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05789

    Original file (BC-2012-05789.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05789 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. 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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-04569

    Original file (BC-2010-04569.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 July 1989, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 2 March 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments in response to the FBI Report and about his post service activities (Exhibit D). Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00741

    Original file (BC-2012-00741.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 6 April 1979, the applicant submitted an appeal for upgrade of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB). 3 ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03392

    Original file (BC 2014 03392.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reasons for these actions are as follows: On 14 Feb 96, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to obey a lawful general regulation to comply with the dress and personal appearance standards. On 3 Jan 96, the applicant received a LOR for making a false official statement that he had a medical appointment when he did not. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation...