RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02934
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He prays that the Board would review his record prior to the time that he had the trouble with the absent without leaves (AWOLs).  When those problems occurred he was going through some problems with his then-fiance and her pregnancy.  When he tried to get leave and couldn’t, he would go AWOL.  He realized later that he should have handled it differently.

Applicant did not provide any documents in support of the appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 February 1970 for a period of 4 years.

While stationed at Nellis AFB, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), three times, was convicted by a summary court-martial, and was administratively discharged.  In the first Article 15 action, the applicant failed to return from approved leave.  The applicant’s commander found he was AWOL between 14 September and 27 September 1971.  The Article 15 punishment consisted of a reduction in grade from airman first class to airman, suspended until 25 March 1972 unless sooner vacated, and forfeiture of $70 pay per month for two months.  On 28 September 1971, the applicant was arrested on two warrants:  the first for running a red light and the second for failing to appear.  The next day he appeared in civilian court and was sentenced to pay $90 or serve 23 days of confinement.  Apparently he did not pay; the applicant was released from civilian confinement on 5 October 1971.  The applicant did not go back to work.  On 6 October 1971 military authorities learned of his release the previous day, and placed the applicant in absent without leave status.  The applicant returned on 9 October 1971.  The applicant’s commander punished him under Article 15 for his absence, imposing 30 days correctional custody.  The commander subsequently remitted all but 17 days.  In addition, the suspended reduction to airman imposed from the first Article 15 action was vacated.  On 7 January 1972, the applicant received his third Article 15 for failing to obey the lawful order of a master sergeant.  He was reduced from airman to airman basic and given 30 days of correctional custody.  While he was serving correctional custody, the applicant failed to return from an assigned detail.  He was AWOL from 7 January until 27 January 1972.  For the offenses of leaving correctional custody and being AWOL, he was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of both charges.  The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged:  confinement for four months and forfeiture of $75 per month for three months.

The applicant’s discharge case file has been lost or destroyed.  However, information extracted from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Examiner’s Brief prepared in October 1983, when the file was a part of his master personnel records, indicates that, on 17 April 1972, the applicant’s group commander recommended he be administratively discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-15a (Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities).  In addition to the special court-martial conviction, the civilian arrest, and the three Article 15 actions, the commander considered an incident on 23 March 1971 during which the applicant failed to obey instructions to leave the day room and go to bed.  On 1 May 1971, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board.

While serving his sentence to confinement imposed by the special court-martial, the applicant explained his reasons for his misconduct.  He stated he went AWOL in August 1971 because he did not like his Air Force Specialty Code (Communications Center Operator).  As a result of the Article 15, he lost his top secret security clearance, was taken off his job and was placed on squadron details.  He said that during each absence he visited his girlfriend and attended Muslim meetings.  The applicant also stated he did not want to return to duty.  In fact, if given order to report to duty, he would refuse.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic was separated from the Air Force on 17 May 1972, (the same day he was released from confinement), under the provisions of AFR 39-12 with an UOTHC discharge.  He had served 1 year, 10 months and 11 days on active duty  One hundred forty-five (145) days were considered time lost (38 days due to AWOL, 8 days due to civil confinement, and 99 days due to military confinement).

On 8 April 1983, the applicant requested the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgrade his discharge to honorable.  On     8 December 1983, the AFDRB denied applicant’s request for an upgrade to honorable.  A complete copy of AFDRB package is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states that violations of the UCMJ may be disposed of in various ways, including nonjudicial punishment and trial by courts-martial.  Nonjudicial punishment is permitted by Article 15, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 815), and governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial and Air Force regulations.  This procedure permits commanders to dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless the service member objects.  Similarly, courts-martial are available for more serious offenses and are governed by the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial.  Although applicant has not complained about the nonjudicial punishment proceedings or court-martial, a review of those proceedings indicates they were legally sufficient.

JAJM observes that the burden of proof rests with the applicant to show error or injustice.  In their opinion, he has failed to produce any persuasive evidence to carry that burden.  The punishment imposed was well within the parameters set out in applicable instructions.  The evidence presented by the applicant is not sufficient to mandate the relief requested, and does not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief.  They recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the separation was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 17 January 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 5 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 02, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 Dec 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jan 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 03.

					
					=