RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01696 

						COUNSEL: NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on his good merit, his discharge should be upgraded.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 Aug 86.

On 22 May 90, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend a Special Court Martial for two specifications of wrongful use of cocaine between 1 Dec 89 and 31 Jan 90 and one specification of wrongful use of cocaine between 1 Dec 89 and 1 Mar 90.  

On 25 May 90, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 12 Jun 90, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and he be issued an UOTHC discharge.

On 22 Jun 90, the action was found legally sufficient recommending a UOTHC discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 22 Jun 90, the discharge authority approved the action as proposed and directed the applicant be furnished an UOTHC discharge.

On 3 Jul 90, the applicant was furnished an UOTHC discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 4 months, and 28 days of active service.

On 27 Nov 95, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.  He requested his UOTHC be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge contending his lawyer did not really meet his needs and did not really represent him the way he should be represented.

On 25 Apr 96, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

On 23 May 16, the applicant was provided an opportunity to submit documentation regarding his conduct since leaving the service.  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 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; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  However, the Board is willing to reconsider the applicant’s request if he can provide evidence supporting a successful post-service adjustment.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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-2016-01696 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 16.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 May 16, w/atch.

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.