RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-02300
		INDEX CODE 110.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1978 under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He took any discharge they would give him at the time. His wife made him choose between her and the Air Force and he made a big mistake going with his wife.  Now he regrets it and wants to be able to use the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted at age 18 in the Regular Air Force on 31 Oct 72. He served as a carpenter first with the 22nd Civil Engineering Squadron at March AFB, CA and then with the 52nd Civil Engineering Squadron at Spangdahlem AB, Germany. He was ultimately promoted to sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug 75. 

His performance reports from 31 Oct 72 through 31 Oct 77 reflect overall ratings of:  8, 8, 6, 7 (Referral), 5 (Referral), and 2 (Commander Directed).

The applicant’s records contain numerous episodes of misconduct and frequent counseling sessions. Some of the more significant incidents are:

	--On 8 Jul 75, he was counseled regarding misuse of his Air Force ID card (as collateral for a $20.00 loan). 

	--He received a letter of counseling on 10 Jan 77 for not reporting for duty.

	--He received an Article 15 on 17 Feb 77 for willfully disobeying a lawful order to report to duty. Punishment was forfeiture of $25.00, 14 days of extra duty and a suspended reduction to airman first class (A1C) until 17 Aug 77. The applicant did not appeal.

	--He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 8 Mar 77 for reckless driving on 5 Oct 76.    

	--On 13 May 77 he was placed on the control roster for 90 days because of a referral performance report.

	--On 3 Aug 77, military police were called to the applicant’s residence where he had beaten his wife and allegedly kicked his three-year-old son down the residence’s front stairs.  He was continued on the control roster for an additional 90 days. On 26 Aug 77, he was confirmed to be an amphetamines user and was entered into a substance abuse rehabilitation program. 

	--On 26 Oct 77, the applicant received an Article 15 for striking at an enlisted member with his hand and striking his wife with his fist on 3 Aug 77.  He was reduced to airman first class and forfeited $75.00 per month for two months. He did not appeal.

	--He received another LOR on 27 Sep 77 for failing to maintain his dorm room.

	--On 22 Nov 77, he received a third Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 31 Oct 77 and for striking an airman in the face with his fist on 11 Nov 77. Punishment was reduction to airman basic. The applicant did not appeal.

	On 5 Dec 77, the commander recommended the applicant be administratively discharged with a UOTHC characterization. The applicant waived his right to a board hearing and did not submit statements in his behalf. The case was found legally sufficient.  On 12 Jan 78, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s UOTHC discharge.

The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic on 30 Jan 78 with a UOTHC characterization. He had 5 years and 3 months of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends he was young and had problems with his wife.  She gave him an ultimatum and went back to Texas, leaving him feeling bitter and lost. Drinking and Valium became a way of life. He made a mistake and asks the Board to understand his loneliness and confusion. His first four years of active duty were honorable and he thinks a general discharge for that portion of his service is fair. He’s sorry he let his country down. 

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. We note the applicant received three Article 15s, several LORs and counseling sessions, and substance abuse rehabilitation to no avail. He has not shown that his repeated misconduct over his short period of service warrants an upgraded discharge. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 this application in Executive Session on 21 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02300 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 02.