RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02592 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He requests the Board consider changing the characterization of his service. He feels that he has improved himself after 20 years. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 December 1986. On 26 September 1988, his commander preferred charges against him alleging theft of personal property, in violation of Article 121 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 26 September 1988, the applicant, under advisement of counsel, requested that he be discharged from the Air Force in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request was approved on 2 November 1988. The applicant was discharged on 6 December 1988 and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. On 24 October 1991, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. In response to a request for post-service information, the applicant submits that he and his first wife moved to Ohio after being discharged from the Air Force. His wife was homesick, packed up his son and moved back to Alaska. He never saw them again; however, he paid child support. He met his second wife and her son and married her 10 years later. Although her son was not biologically his, he enjoyed having him in his life and considered him his son. Concerning his Federal Bureau of Investigations report, he states that he and his step-son struggled to communicate during his son’s teen years and regretfully, he became physical, in self-defense. He and his son received counseling and learned how to communicate with each other. As a result, this helped their communication and their relationship grew. He now has a great relationship with his step-son and his wife and enjoys the relationship he has with his grandchildren. Another incident occurred in 2009 when someone wrote him a check and placed a stop payment causing his bank account to go negative. This incident was dismissed in court. He is now disabled due to several incidents and it has affected his employment. It has been several years since his discharge and requests his discharge be upgraded. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. 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 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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02592 in Executive Session on 5 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record Excerpts. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.