RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01479
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 poor representation by the Area Defense Council (ADC) at
time of his discharge. The investigating officers report (Art.
32) was not considered by his ADC. He was administratively
discharged in spite of the investigating officers finding that
a court-martial would not have found him guilty of the alleged
offenses.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
29 Jun 71.
On 16 May 83, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for violation of the following articles of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
a. Article 120 - Committing the offense of carnal
knowledge with his two daughters, both under the age of 16.
b. Article 125 - Committing the offense of sodomy with his
two daughters, both under the age of 16.
c. Article 134 - Committing lewd acts with his two
daughters, both under the age of 16.
On 17 May 83, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of a
court-martial.
On 27 Jun 83, the commanders recommendation to furnish the
applicant a UOTHC discharge in lieu of court-martial was found
legally sufficient.
On 6 Jul 83, the commander recommended that the applicant be
discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 4,
paragraph 4-1, and that he be furnished a UOTHC discharge and
that he not be afforded probation and rehabilitation
opportunities.
On 3 Aug 83, the discharge authority accepted the request for
discharge in lieu of court-martial and directed a UOTHC
discharge.
On 12 Aug 83, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and
was credited with 12 years, 1 month, and 14 days of active
service.
On 4 Jun 91, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however,
the AFDRB denied his application, concluding that the discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the
discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full
administrative due process.
On 29 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within
30 days. In response, the applicant provides an expanded
statement describing his activities since leaving the service
and a copy of an FBI arrest record (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 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, we do not find the evidence presented is
sufficient for us to conclude that the applicants post-service
activities 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-2014-01479 in Executive Session on 19 Feb 15, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 14.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 14
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jun 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02729
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02729 INDEX CODE 111.02 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Airman Performance Report (APR) closing 30 Mar 83 be voided from his records and replaced with the “original one that had straight 9s,” his 1983 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00498
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicants request for discharge be approved and that she receive an UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 25 Apr 83, the discharge authority approved the applicants request for discharge and on 6 May 83, she was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 4, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2003-01216-2
On 1 November 2005, the Court remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration with instructions to review the Air Force records of investigation of applicant’s claim of ineffective counsel (Exhibit K) and the Discharge Review Board’s alleged findings that “an error and injustice” had occurred with regard to the applicant (Exhibit L). On 10 April 2001, an Investigating Officer (IO) was appointed by the Air Force Legal Services Agency (AFLSA) commander to examine the allegation of...
In his 13 years of service, he never received an Article 15 or any such reprimands. The application was timely filed. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00431 INDEX CODE 106.00 111.02 136.00 COUNSEL: VFW HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1995 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and he be authorized a 15-year retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) Program. In his letter to the SAF, he asked to retire effective 1 Aug 94...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00330
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00330 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from general, under honorable conditions (UHC) to honorable. On 7 Aug 84, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. In our view, the...
He received an LOR on 7 Apr 82 for failing to report for duty on 3 April 82. On 17 May 83, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01216
On 19 December 2000, the discharge authority’s staff judge advocate recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and that the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC characterization of service. It is also JA’s opinion that the applicant should not be allowed to use his discharge request to halt the court-martial process established by law as the proper means to adjudicate the criminal allegations against him and now, under the guise of an...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00193
The Record of Trial indicates there was no error or injustice in the applicants case. However, because the applicant requested appellate review and was granted the rehearing of his case, the Air Force extended his enlistment as provided in AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force. AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, table 2.2., rule 11 authorizes an enlisted member to request to retire in lieu of an administrative discharge action when the member is retirement eligible.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04132
Records indicate he appeared, with counsel, before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 25 Feb 97. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...