RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00498
		        COUNSEL:  NONE
		        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It has been over 30 years since her discharge.  She has pursued 
and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Business 
Administration, Master of Business Administration and Executive 
Master in Business Administration.

In support of her request, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, 
Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States, and copies of her degree certificates.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Jun 80, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first 
class.

On 6 Apr 83, the applicant’s commander brought court-martial 
charges against her for writing worthless checks at Lackland and 
Fort Sam Houston Exchanges over a period from about 28 Jan 83 to 
9 Feb 83, totaling $879.58, in violation of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 123a.  Prior to the alleged 
offense, she received an Article 15 with a suspended reduction 
to the grade of airman for larceny.  On 21 Oct 81, she was tried 
by a special court-martial for larceny of $450.00.  She was 
sentenced to a 60-day restriction, forfeiture of $75.00 per 
month for six months and a reduction in grade to airman basic.  

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a 
voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  She acknowledged that she understood if her request 
was approved, she could be discharged with an UOTHC discharge.  

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant’s 
request for discharge be approved and that she receive an UOTHC 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 25 Apr 83, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
request for discharge and on 6 May 83, she was discharged under 
the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, Chapter 4, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by 
Court-Martial, and received an UOTHC discharge.  She served on 
active duty for 2 years, 10 months, and 19 days.

On 9 Aug 85, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that her discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.  After reviewing the evidence of record, the AFDRB 
concluded that no upgrade in discharge was warranted. 

On 26 Aug 13, a request for information pertaining to her post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response 
within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has 
been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 on the basis of 
clemency; however, we do not find the evidence provided 
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 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 Docket Number    
BC-2013-00498 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Aug 13.
1 2