RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03906 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions (UHC)) be changed to 
honorable. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

It has been 18 years since his discharge. He was young and 
wanted to get of his job. He did what he thought was right at 
the time, but knows now that young people do not think straight. 
He paid for his mistakes later in life. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was notified by commander that he was recommending 
him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 
39-10, paragraph 5-49c, Other Serious Offenses. The specific 
reason for this action was for acquiring stolen property. He 
pled guilty to the offense of “Theft Over $200.00 and Under 
$750.00” in County Court. The Court deferred further proceedings 
without entering an adjudication of guilt, placed him on 
probation for a term of 1 year conditioned on him paying court 
costs/fees and fines of $408.00, and he was ordered to perform 80 
hours of community service. The Air Force did not know about the 
conviction until a third party informed them in June 1994. A 
similar offense (Larceny, Article 121) under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) carries a maximum punishment of a 
dishonorable discharge, 5 years in confinement, total forfeitures 
of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. 

 

On 29 Jul 94, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the case 
legally sufficient to warrant discharge. The administrative 
discharge case went before the commander as the Special Court-
Martial Convening Authority to review and approve the discharge 
on 4 Aug 94. The applicant received a general (UHC) discharge on 
12 Aug 94 after serving 3 years, 8 months, and 29 days on active 
duty. 



 

On 2 Apr 13, a request for information pertaining to his post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response 
within 30 days. In response to our request, applicant provided 
post-service information, which is attached at 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 his 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, the applicant has provided no evidence concerning his 
post-service activities to warrant such consideration. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03906 in Executive Session on 16 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 



 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Apr 13, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated.