RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00082
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable, his narrative reason for separation be changed from “Triable by Court Martial” to “Convenience of the Government,” and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be changed to “1.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged for allegations of adultery and misuse of a government vehicle.  He admits he had an affair, but he did not misuse a government vehicle.  He requested a discharge in lieu of court-martial on the advice of his Area Defense Counsel (ADC) and to save any embarrassment to the Air Force and his family.  In his 13 years of service, he never received an Article 15 or any such reprimands.  He would like to resume his service to his country, if not on active duty then in the Reserves.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a letter from his congressman, character reference letters and a college transcript.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 1 Apr 87.  He continued to reenlist, with his last reenlistment on 26 Feb 99 for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Jun 94.

On 9 Aug 00, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 92, UCMJ (dereliction of duties in that he willfully failed to use a government vehicle for official purposes only, between 15 Jun 99 and 30 Jun 00); and, for violation of Article 134, UCMJ (adultery between 15 Jun 99 and 30 Jun 00).  His commander recommended the charges be referred to trial by special court-martial.  On 21 Aug 00, the applicant and his defense counsel requested a UOTHC discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 5 Sep 00, the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial was approved and the discharge authority directed that he be issued a UOTHC Discharge certificate because of a pattern of misconduct.

On 11 Sep 00, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Triable by Court-Martial).  He had completed a total of 13 years, 5 months and 1 day and was serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE code of 2B, which defined means, “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge.”

Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable, change of reason for discharge and RE code was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 3 Apr 01.  A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS stated that, based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE stated that the RE code of 2B is correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 June 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence establishing that his under discharge was unfounded or unjust.  The applicant has furnished no persuasive evidence demonstrating that his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was anything other than a knowing and voluntary act.  We found no evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge, that pertinent Air Force instructions were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We have noted the character references provided for our review and do not find them sufficient to support the approval of the requested relief on the basis of clemency.  Our finding in this regard is based on the seriousness of the applicant’s infractions against the good order and discipline of the service, the position of responsibility he held within the military community, and the short period of time which has elapsed since his separation.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence that the applicant’s substantial rights were violated, that the information contained in the discharge case file was erroneous, or that his superiors abused their discretionary authority, we find no basis in the available record upon which to favorably consider this application.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 27 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Mar 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Jun 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.