RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03806
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In the interest of fairness and justice his discharge should be upgraded.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), a statement from his brother, with exhibits, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 26 Oct 78.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, with an effective date and date of rank of 26 Oct 79.  The applicant was subsequently reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-2), with an effective date and date of rank of 14 Oct 80, due to an Article 15, dated 7 Oct 80.

On 24 Nov 80, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  On 1 Dec 80, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and submitted an unconditional waiver to an administrative discharge board.  The reasons for the discharge action follows:

	-  Two Records of Counseling (ROC) for reporting late for duty, dated 22 Jun 79 and 28 Sep 79.

	-  A Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 11 Jul 80, for reporting late for duty and an LOR, dated 5 Aug 80, for negotiating a check without sufficient funds.

	-  Three Articles 15 as follows:

(1)  On 25 Aug 80, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  After considering all matters presented to him, the commander found that the applicant did commit one or more of the offenses alleged.  The commander imposed punishment consisting of a forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months, but that portion of punishment in excess of $50.00 per month for two months was suspended until 28 Feb 81.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 11 Sep 80, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to vacate the suspended nonjudicial punishment because he again failed to report for duty at the appropriate time.  After considering all matters presented to him on 12 Sep 80, the commander determined the applicant had not demonstrated that he would comply with required standards of performance.  Therefore, the commander vacated the suspension of the forfeiture and executed the sentence of $50.00 per month for two months.

(2)  On 7 Oct 80, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to appointed place of duty on 26 Sep, 29 Sep and 30 Sep 80, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; failure to obey a lawful order on 28 Sep 80, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; and, failure to obey a lawful command, in violation of Article 90, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  The commander, on 14 Oct 80, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of forfeiture of $224.00 per month for two months, restriction to base for 45 days, and a reduction to the grade of airman basic, with a new date of rank of 14 Oct 80.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

(3)  On 21 Oct 80, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for being disrespectful to his superior noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  After considering all matters presented to him, on 13 Nov 80, the commander found that the applicant did commit one or more of the offenses alleged.  The commander imposed punishment consisting of a forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  As a result of this nonjudicial punishment, the applicant was restricted to base during the period 13 Nov - 27 Dec 80.

On 7 Jan 81, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (misconduct - frequent involvement with military authorities - board waiver).  He had completed a total of 2 years, 2 months and 12 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS states that 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 C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 17 Jan 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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, after thoroughly reviewing applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge in 1981, we found no evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge, that pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  In view of the above and in the absence of sufficient 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 are not inclined to favorably consider his request for upgrade of his discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

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 13 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03806.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jan 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.