RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03148

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never did anything wrong in the service.  He made a big mistake one night off base and paid his debt to society within one month.  He will soon be 50 years old and does not want his three daughters to live with the same shame he has.  He had a neck cancer wake-up call that taught him that family is number one.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 October 1985.  

On 17 December 1987, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and an AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, for conspiring with others on or about 19 September 1987 to conceal stolen property, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  

On 5 October 1988, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a civilian conviction.  The commander recommended an UOTHC discharge, which qualified the applicant for a hearing before an administrative discharge board.  The reasons for the action included the following:  

	a)  On 29 August 1988, the applicant pled guilty to the offense of intentional damage to private property (a first degree felony offense).  

 	b)  On 14 September 1988, the applicant was placed on two years’ probation, ordered to serve 30 days in jail, pay restitution in the amount $3,797.43, and fined $750.00.  

On 5 October 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and that legal counsel was made available to assist him.  

On 17 October 1988, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his board entitlement.  However, his request was denied by the special courts-martial convening authority.  

On 28 November 1988, appointed officers of an administrative discharge board convened and recommended the applicant be separated with an UOTHC discharge and that he should not be offered probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  

On 12 December 1988, the board actions were found to be legally sufficient.  

On 5 January 1989, the separation authority directed the applicant be furnished an UOTHC discharge without P&R.  

On 19 January 1989, the applicant was furnished a under other than honorable conditions discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct – Civilian Conviction”, and was issued a separation code of “GKB” (civil court conviction).  He was credited with 3 years, 2 months and 29 days of active service.  

On 8 December 2015, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for comment.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).  

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 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 lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offense committed.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency, however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged.  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-2015-03148 in Executive Session on 10 March 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 July 2015.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 December 2015, w/atch.