RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02535

	 		COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty, he was diagnosed with conditions that have 
worsened since his release.  He was treated with hypnosis rather 
than medication.  He now has chronic symptoms and needs 
medication to treat this condition.  His discharge must be 
upgraded for him to receive benefits from the Department of 
Veteran’s Affairs (DVA).

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits DVA 
correspondence and documentation from his master personnel 
record.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 30 January 1980.  On 
7 November 1988, he was notified that his commander recommended 
that he be discharged from the Air Force for conduct prejudicial 
to good order and discipline.  On 15 November 1988, he 
acknowledged his right to request or waive an Administrative 
Discharge Board, to be represented by counsel and to submit 
statements on his behalf.  The applicant requested a hearing 
before an Administrative Discharge Board, requested counsel and 
noted that he would submit statements on his behalf.

On 4 and 5 April 1989, the Discharge Board met and heard the 
case.  The Board found the applicant:

	a. Did assault his wife, but did not threaten her life.
	b. Did not put his son in a clothes dryer and turn it on.
	c. Did not harass his family by threats of violence and 
           nonsupport, culminating in their return to England.
	d. Did strike his wife with a closed fist.
	e. Did argue with his girlfriend and strike her.
	f. Did assault his girlfriend.
	g. Did strike his girlfriend in the head and knock her to the  
           ground.

The Board also found that the applicant should be discharged and 
recommended he be separated with an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge.  They also recommended that he not be 
offered probation and rehabilitation.

On 18 July 1989, the staff judge advocate opined the evidence in 
the case supported the Board’s recommendation for discharge.  On 
20 July 1989, the commander approved the recommendations and 
findings of the Board and directed the applicant be separated 
with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

In response to a request for post-service information the 
applicant states that he has been a volunteer for the City of 
Philadelphia for the past 15 years.  He volunteers for the 
summer school lunch program and with the county Board of 
Elections.

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, or unduly harsh. 
Additionally, we do not find it would be in the interest of 
justice to upgrade the discharge on the basis of clemency.  
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.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02535 in Executive Session on 27 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 13, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 Jan 14.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated.