RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01041 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 was driving a friend when his friend wanted to stop at a convenience store. He was unaware he had robbed the store. He was arrested, convicted and sentenced to one year as an accessory to the crime committed. He was discharged due to the civil conviction. He was a victim of a friend’s stupid mistake. He asks for leniency. He served his time, received two degrees and has worked as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) for the past 30 years. He is now disabled and needs a general discharge so he can receive healthcare from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). He has not asked for help from the Armed Forces for 34 years; however, he is now 57 years old and his health has deteriorated to the point he can no longer work and he does not have healthcare. This request is solely to obtain healthcare from the DVA. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 July 1978, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. The Civil Court Disposition, State of Florida, dated 2 April 1980, indicates the applicant pled nolo contendere to robbery without a firearm and was sentenced to not more than six years; to serve a minimum of one year confinement; remainder in community controlled program. On 15 April 1980, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force with a UOTHC In Accordance With (IAW) AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program. The reason for the recommendation was the criminal court action against the applicant on the charge of robbery without a firearm which was tantamount to a finding of guilty. The applicant was advised of his rights to present his case before an administrative discharge board, to be represented by counsel, submit statements in his own behalf or waive his rights. On 16 April 1980, the applicant acknowledged the discharge recommendation and declined to waive his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board. On 1 May 1980, the applicant requested a conditional waiver of his rights contingent on receiving a general discharge. On 2 May 1980, the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver of a discharge board contingent upon a general discharge was rejected and his case was referred to a board hearing. On 12 May 1980, the applicant’s commander accepted his 6 May 1980 unconditional waiver of a discharge board. On 21 May 1980, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient. On 23 May 1980, the discharge authority approved the recommendation the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC discharge. On 30 May 1980, the applicant was discharged with a UOTHC and narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct – civil court disposition – board waiver.” On 17 April 2015, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant with 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of this 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; however, there was no evidence presented to warrant recommending granting relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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-2015-01041 in Executive Session on 13 January 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 March 2015, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 April 2015, w/atch.