RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04304 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable or medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has recently had some medical issues and tried to get help through the VA; however, because of his UOTHC he was denied assistance. While stationed at Kunsan Air Base he injured his knee playing ball for the base intramural team. He was sent to Japan for surgery and after rehabilitation he reinjured the same knee. Directly after returning to work he was offered two options; cross train into a different career field or be permanently separated under honorable/medical conditions. He opted for the medical discharge. He received an Article 15 for falsifying a document. He later received an Article 15 for disorderly conduct. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 May 1981. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 – Misconduct. The specific reasons follow: a. On 12 February 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for his involvement in an affray on or about 10 February 1982. b. On 19 November 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. c. On 30 March 1983, the applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. d. On 13 May 1983, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. e. On 6 October 1983, the applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 for disorderly conduct in a public place and for making a false official statement. He was advised of his rights in the matter and after consulting with counsel the applicant elected to waive his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged on 19 December 1983. He served 2 years, 7 months on active duty and was credited with 2 years and 12 days foreign service. On 2 April 2013, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (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 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, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-04304 in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04304 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 September 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 April 2013.