RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02826

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXX

	HEARING: YES	

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on today’s standards and the undisputed facts at time of his discharge, he should now receive an Honorable discharge.  He had a remarkable service record and has similar accomplishments since his military service.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 8 Jan 97.

On 4 May 00, according to DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, the applicant was charged with two specifications; wrongful use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and wrongful use of marijuana. He was referred to trial for a general court-martial.

On 7 Jul 00, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial to his commander.  Eighth Air Force Commander (8 AF/CC) denied that request on 7 Aug 00.

On 14 Aug 00, the applicant again requested he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He states he received legal counsel from the Circuit Defense Counsel, Travis AFB, CA and the Area Defense Counsel, Mountain Home AFB, ID.

On 15 Aug 00, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the 8 AF/CC approve the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial.

On 18 Aug 00, 8 AF/CC approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial and stated the applicant’s service characterization will be a UOTHC. 

On 1 Sep 00, the applicant was discharged with a UOTHC service characterization.  He was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 24 days of active service. 

On 3 Nov 16, the Board sent a request for post-service information to the applicant (Exhibit C), but has received no response.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  The applicant, on 12 Aug 00, willingly requested an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request for discharge was after receiving advice from the defense counsel, and in submitting his request, he signed that he understood he could get a UOTHC discharge.  The request was supported by the chain of command and was ultimately approved by the Numbered Air Force Commander.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application.  They found no evidence in the applicant’s military record to indicate that his discharge characterization was erroneous or unjust.  Additionally, the applicant has not provided any evidence to support an upgrade of his discharge service characterization based on clemency.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 5 May 17 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Nor was the discharge unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, and especially in the absence of post-service information provided by the applicant, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02826 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 18:

Panel Chair 
Panel Member
Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 11 Jul 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Post Service Clemency Letter, 3 Nov 16.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 9 Feb 17.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 5 Apr 17.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 5 May 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.