RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01241 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: He needs his discharge upgraded to “general” to ensure he will always have Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) health benefits. Since his discharge from the Air Force 33 years ago, he has been a decent law-abiding citizen. The misconduct which caused his discharge has changed; he is a model citizen and regrets his poor conduct. He believed he was “over” disciplined. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of his appeal. The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 May 78, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 8 Feb 80, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program for frequent involvements of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. For a full accounting of the offenses, see the commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B. On 2 May 80, the applicant appeared before an Administrative Discharge Board. The board recommended the applicant be discharged for misconduct, with service characterized as UOTHC without the offer of probation and rehabilitation. On 12 May 80, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. On 13 May 80, the applicant was discharged for general misconduct with service characterized as UOTHC in the grade of airman basic. He served 2 years and 13 days of total active service. In a letter dated, 7 Nov 13, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the infractions which led to his administrative separation and lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted. In view of the above and 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 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-2013-01241 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Nov 13 Exhibit D. Email, SAF/MRBC, dated 8 Nov 13, w/atch. 2 3 4