RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01527 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His discharge was unjust because he was young and immature, and 
his conduct was more emotional, rather than based on rational 
thinking. He is now more mature and does not want the actions 
of his youth to ruin his future. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides several notes 
of character reference. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 26 May 88, 
for a period of four years. 

 

On 9 Mar 89, the commander notified the applicant of the 
administrative discharge board (ADB) hearing. The specific 
reasons for the proposed action were; 1) he received a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR) for on or about 6 Jan 89, he assaulted another 
airman and possessed an altered identification card that 
belonged to another airman; 2) he received an Article 15, for on 
or about 16 Jan 89, he failed to go to his assigned place of 
duty, obey a lawful order, and for assaulting another airman; 3) 
for being absent without leave from 4 – 6 Feb 89, while the 
Article 15 action was pending. 

 

The applicant waived his rights to a board hearing and to submit 
statements in his own behalf. The staff judge advocate reviewed 
the case file and found it legally sufficient and the discharge 
authority approved an UOTHC discharge. 

 


On 26 Apr 89, the applicant was discharged by reason of 
misconduct – pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and 
discipline, with service characterized as under other than 
honorable conditions. He was credited with 11 months and 1 day 
of active duty service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that based 
on the data furnished; they are unable to locate an arrest 
record. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 his 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 the applicant’s overall record of 
service, the seriousness of the offenses which led to his 
administrative separation, and the character references provided 
in support on his appeal; however, we are not persuaded that an 
upgrade of the characterization of his discharge on the basis of 
clemency is warranted. Should the applicant provide additional 
information, e.g., post-service documentation to support his 
claim, we would be willing to reconsider his appeal. Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 
upon which 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-2012-01527 in Executive Session on 20 December 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair