RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01788 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He became an alcoholic while on active duty and was never offered treatment for his condition. His alcoholism was not recognized as the main reason for his inability to perform to standards and he was not offered a hearing. He served his country well until his illness. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 Nov 1978, the applicant entered active duty. On 23 Dec 1980, the applicant requested he be discharged in accordance with Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, in lieu of court-martial. He acknowledged he understood that if his request was approved, he could receive an UOTHC discharge, be deprived of veterans’ benefits and that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He was afforded the opportunity to consult counsel. On 9 Jan 1981, his commander recommended the applicant’s request for separation be approved. The basis for the recommendation was that proceeding with court-martial at the time would serve no useful purpose and be detrimental to the judicial system. The applicant received two Article 15’s, was placed on the control roster, received several Letters of Counseling (LOC) and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go and failure to repair. He was also charged with Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and marijuana use. The applicant completed the drug rehabilitation course and all reasonable efforts to remedy the applicant’s failure to conform to Air Force standards were unsuccessful. For a detailed list of charges, please see the commander’s letter in Exhibit B. On 15 Jan 1981, the staff judge advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 13 Feb 1981, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as UOTHC. He served two years and three months. On 12 Oct 1983, the Air Force Discharge Review Board disapproved the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. On 9 Dec 2013, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. In response, the applicant states he was placed in a foster home as a child, was subjected to beatings, mental cruelty and various other forms of neglect. His foster father, who served in the Army, used all his funds he obtained from his parents to purchase a home for his family. His foster father was getting paid for having him until he reached adult age. After all the evil that was handed to him as a child, he still wanted to honor his country and his dead parents. He was psychologically disadvantaged due to his negative background and wants the upgrade so he can apply for a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) loan to buy a home of his own. He is not looking for vindication and would like his discharge to be upgraded. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ 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 during the discharge process. 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 characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the numerous infractions which led to his administrative separation and the lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and 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 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 Docket Number BC-2013-01788 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence in Docket Number BC-2013-01788 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 2013. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Dec 2013, w/atch. Exhibit D. E-mail, Applicant, dated 2 Jan 2014.