RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04910 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Office of Special Investigations (OSI) coerced him into writing a statement, telling him that he would be released when they were satisfied with his statement. He re-wrote his statement six times before they were satisfied. An upgrade to his discharge will allow him to receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs that he earned during his service. In addition, the upgrade will be beneficial to his career and allow him to join the Veterans of Foreign War and American Legion so he can be an asset to his community. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because he previously requested an upgrade to his discharge in 1997; however, he did not have all the evidence that he currently has. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 June 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. According to a Legal Review dated 31 July 1991, on 11 January 1991, the applicant was charged with committing sodomy (fellatio) upon the three-year old son of a fellow squadron member. An Article 32, UCMJ, pretrial investigation was conducted and, on 1 February 1991, the charge and specification was referred to trial by general court-martial. On 10 April 1991, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The commander and Judge Advocate initially recommended that the applicant’s request be disapproved and that the case proceed to trial. However, because of evidentiary problems, they recommended the applicant’s request be approved and that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge. The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) indicated that the applicant’s request for “Discharge in Lieu of Court-martial” would be easier for the victim and in the best interest of the Air Force and recommended he be separated with a UOTHC discharge. In a letter dated 31 July 1991, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial and directed that he be issued a UOTHC discharge. On 9 August 1991, the applicant received a UOTHC discharge. His narrative reason for separation is “Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.” In a letter dated 6 September 1991, the SJA advised the applicant that the charge preferred against him on 11 January 1991, was withdrawn with prejudice. On 24 March 1997, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge from UOTHC to honorable. On 25 April 1997, the AFDRB denied the applicant’s appeal. On 30 December 2014, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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 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 warrant granting the relief sought. 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-2014-04910 in Executive Session on 4 August 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 November 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 December 2014, w/atch.