RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05448
	XXXXXXX 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time he enlisted in the Air Force he had a great deal of 
trouble that resulted in his entry into the juvenile justice 
system.  He had a lot of problems with authority figures both 
prior to and while in the service, which led to time in the brig 
and his eventual discharge.  

He had become addicted to alcohol and did not receive any 
treatment.  These issues have followed him into his adult life, 
including legal issues.  He is trying to get his life back 
together; he is no longer homeless and is clean and sober. He is 
under treatment in the civilian community for all of his 
problems and would like to get his discharge upgraded so that he 
may access the services available through the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA).  This would help him continue to remain 
sober as well as obtain suitable employment and become a 
productive member in his community.  He has been given the dual 
diagnosis of substance addiction and Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD) from life events, is in counseling and receiving 
medication to help control his problems.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Mar 79, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.  

On 25 Sep 79, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for frequent involvement of a 
discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  The 
applicant had two Article 15s, two Letters of Reprimand, and was 
convicted by a special court-martial.  For a full list of the 
offenses, please see the commander’s notification letter at 
Exhibit B.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived 
his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  The staff 
judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and 
recommended the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge.  On 
2 Nov 79, the discharge authority approved the UOTHC discharge.

On 6 Nov 79, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as UOTHC.  He was credited with 7 months, and 
21 days of active duty service.  

________________________________________________________________

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 applicant’s discharge on 
the basis of clemency; however, in view of the applicant’s 
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 of the 
characterization of his discharge is warranted on that basis.  
Should the applicant provide additional information, e.g., post-
service documentation to support his claim, we would be willing 
to reconsider his request.  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-2012-05448 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Dec 61 (sic). 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.




                                   Panel Chair