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.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the discharge processing, he was not advised of his 
rights in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ) and did not know how to fight the charges.  He was a 
young man planning on being a career soldier and had been since 
1971.  He loved the military and the honor of duty he performed 
for his country.  He is an unemployed 61 year old veteran who 
was discharged under false accusations.  He further states that 
he gave 14 years of his life for his country and now he is in 
need of medical care.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty and character reference letters.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was charged with two specifications of committing 
sodomy with a child under 16 years of age, one specification of 
committing sodomy with a female not his wife, all three 
specifications in violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ, and two 
specifications of committing indecent acts with a child under 
16 years of age, in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ.

The applicant was advised of his rights in the matter and after 
consulting with counsel the applicant requested discharge in 
lieu of trial by court-martial.  In a legal review of the case 
file, the deputy staff judge advocate found the case legally 
sufficient and recommended discharge.  The discharge authority 
concurred with the recommendation and directed an UOTHC 
discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 7 October 1985.  He 
served 14 years, 3 months and 24 days on active duty.

On 10 September 2013, a request for information pertaining to 
his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for 
review and response within 15 days (Exhibit C).  

The applicant states from 1984 to 2004 he has worked for two 
ambulance companies as a driver and emergency medical 
technician.  From 2004 to 2011 he has worked as an Aquatic 
Herbicide Applicator.  His community activities include 
educating people on the Native American culture and history and 
he also works with wildlife rescue.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
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 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 
and considered the applicant's overall post-service activities 
and accomplishments; however, we do not find the evidence 
presented is sufficient to recommend granting the relief sought 
on that basis.  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 an 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-2012-05789 in Executive Session on 15 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 December 2012, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 September 2013.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 September 2013.





2


3