RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01499 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She is uncertain why she was discharged with less than an honorable discharge. Her mother became ill and she was the only available care giver. The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of her appeal. A copy of the applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served as an Administration Specialist and was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4) with a date of rank of 1 August 1973. On 11 June 1976, the applicant was tried by a special court- martial for four specifications of wrongful sale of heroin and one specification wrongful possession of a controlled substance. On 26 August 1976, the reviewing authority approved the findings and a sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for 12 months, total forfeitures, and reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1). On 14 January 1977, the Air Force Court for Military Review dismissed the charge involving possession of a controlled substance as not having been service connected. It also set aside the findings of guilty as to the charges involving the sale of heroin as well as the approved sentence. The appellate court held the applicant was materially prejudiced by the trial judge’s failure to “sua sponte” [on its own will or motion] give the court an unabbreviated instruction regarding accomplice testimony. Specifically, it was held that the trial judge should have instructed the court that the testimony of the witnesses were uncorroborated as a matter of law, and that it could not be used to convict the applicant if the court considered it self- contradictory, uncertain, or implausible. On 25 February 1977, the commander approved action for a rehearing. On 7 March 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant filed her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12, Chapter 2, Section F. She indicated that if her request for discharge was approved, she understood it may result in her receiving a UOTHC discharge. On 15 March 1977, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended that it would be in the best interest of the government to approve the applicant’s request for discharge. On 16 March 1977, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge and directed she be furnished an UOTHC discharge certificate under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12, Section F, paragraph 2- 78. The applicant was discharged effective 18 March 1977, with a UOTHC discharge. She served three years, four months, and six days on active duty. On 23 March 1978 and 8 December 1980, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report (Exhibit C). On 16 June 2010, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about her post service activities and the FBI Report (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 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. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning her post-service activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01499 in Executive Session on 18 November 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01499 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 10. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Report. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Jun 10, w/atch. Panel Chair