RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05226

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served four years under honorable status and requested to extend in service to support Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM.  After being reassigned to Arkansas, he requested an early out.  He was told his discharge status would not affect his ability to claim/utilize military benefits; however, the discharge is a negative mark on all government positions and benefits.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Jul 86.

On 4 May 91, the applicant unlawfully entered another service member’s dorm room.

On 29 May 91 and on 7 Jun 91, the applicant received Letters of Admonishment (LOA) for failure to go to appointed place of duty at prescribed time.  

On 11 Jul 91, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing a dormitory room inspection.  

On 25 Mar 92, the applicant received an Article 15 for violation of Article 134, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), unlawfully entering another service member’s dorm room.  

On 24 Apr 92, the applicant’s commander recommended an UOTHC discharge for misconduct.

On 12 May 92, the discharge was found to be legally sufficient.  

On 30 May 92, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

On 4 Jun 92, the applicant was furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 10 months, and 25 days of active service.  

On 12 May 93, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded.  

On 19 Jun 16, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits D and E. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Although the applicant’s discharge documentation is absent from the record, the AFDRB provided a case summarization.  According to the AFDRB summary, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an Administrative Discharge Review Board contingent upon receipt of no less than an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge.  The waiver was denied by the discharge authority, a board hearing was set, and the applicant waived his right to a hearing.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge characterization.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant has made no convincing argument nor has he provided any documentation that an error or injustice is present in his records.  Thus, AFPC/JA concurs with the AFPC/DP2STM advisory and recommends that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Furthermore, 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.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, based on the evidence before us, the Board finds no basis to grant clemency at this time.  However, the Board would be willing to reconsider his appeal should he provide new and relevant information relative to his claim.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-05226 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 15.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jun 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 15 Jun 16.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 11 Jul 16.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.