RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01479 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had poor representation by the Area Defense Council (ADC) at time of his discharge. The investigating officer’s report (Art. 32) was not considered by his ADC. He was administratively discharged in spite of the investigating officer’s finding that a court-martial would not have found him guilty of the alleged offenses. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 Jun 71. On 16 May 83, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the following articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). a. Article 120 - Committing the offense of carnal knowledge with his two daughters, both under the age of 16. b. Article 125 - Committing the offense of sodomy with his two daughters, both under the age of 16. c. Article 134 - Committing lewd acts with his two daughters, both under the age of 16. On 17 May 83, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of a court-martial. On 27 Jun 83, the commander’s recommendation to furnish the applicant a UOTHC discharge in lieu of court-martial was found legally sufficient. On 6 Jul 83, the commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-1, and that he be furnished a UOTHC discharge and that he not be afforded probation and rehabilitation opportunities. On 3 Aug 83, the discharge authority accepted the request for discharge in lieu of court-martial and directed a UOTHC discharge. On 12 Aug 83, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 12 years, 1 month, and 14 days of active service. On 4 Jun 91, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application, concluding that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. On 29 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. In response, the applicant provides an expanded statement describing his activities since leaving the service and a copy of an FBI arrest record (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 an 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 for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-01479 in Executive Session on 19 Feb 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 14 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jun 14, w/atchs.