RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03646 

 INDEX CODE: 110.02 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was raped in the military which acerbated his abnormal 
behavior, resulting in his contraction of the HIV/AIDS Virus 
while he was on active duty. He would like an upgrade of his 
discharge so he could receive Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) benefits. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
and a personal statement. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 11 October 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). He 
was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4). 

 

On 23 May 1991, his commander preferred court-martial charges 
against the applicant for one charge of larceny of a pair of 
shorts from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), in 
violation of Article 121, Uniformed Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ), and one charge of conduct prejudicial to good order and 
discipline by appearing in public view dressed as a woman, in 
violation of Article 134, UCMJ. On 3 June 1991, after consulting 
with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 
discharge in lieu of court-martial. On 4 June 1991, his 
commander forwarded the applicant’s request with a recommendation 
that it be accepted with a UOTHC discharge. On 20 June 1991, the 
Wing Assistant Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and Acting SJA found 
the case to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant’s 
request for discharge be approved and that his characterization 



of discharge be UOTHC without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). 
On 24 June 1991, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
request for discharge, pending medical clearance, as being in the 
best interest of the Air Force. 

 

On 6 August 1991, the applicant received Article 15 punishment 
for stealing some perfume valued at approximately $30 from the 
AAFES. His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to airman 
first class (E-3) with a new date of rank of 6 August 1991 and 
forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months. 

 

On 6 November 1991, after evaluation by a Medical Evaluation 
Board, the applicant was certified physically fit and medically 
qualified for continued active duty. On 13 January 1992, the 
applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge under the 
authority of Air Force Regulation 39-10. He served seven years, 
three months, and three days on active duty. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), XXXXX, WV, provided a copy of an 
Investigation Report. On 15 April 2009, the applicant was given 
an opportunity to submit comments about his post service 
activities and the FBI Report (Exhibit C). As of this date, this 
office has received no 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 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 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 considered upgrading the discharge 
based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented 
is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief 
sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting 
the relief sought. 

 



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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 this application in 
Executive Session on 28 May 2009, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

  Panel Chair 

  Member 

  Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2008-03646: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 08, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Apr 09, w/atch.