RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04050

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His command abused its authority when it decided to discharge him after he was exonerated by his squadron commander.  The case was then picked up by an outside division and pushed through the base commander.

In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 293, Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, Personal Data Sheet, and Report of Medical History.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 18 April 1985.  The commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial) with service characterized under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge on      13 May 1993 in the grade of sergeant.  He served 8 years and     26 days of total active service.

Documents are missing from applicant’s records that led up to the request for discharge in lieu of court-martial.  Limited documentation shows he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 in December 1991 for larceny of government property of less than $100, making a false statement and forgery of someone else’s signature on a meal ticket.  In January 1993, his supervisor did not recommend reenlistment because he had shown a repeated record of financial irresponsibility.  Despite numerous administrative actions, he had not seen fit to correct this problem (taken from AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Form).

On 25 June 1998, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon documentation in file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade on 25 June 1998. The Board ruled that by resigning in lieu of trial by court-martial, the applicant forfeited the opportunity to prove his innocence and avoided the possibility of a conviction, jail time and a punitive discharge.  The “standard” characterization for this type of discharge is UOTHC.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 February 2003, for review and comment 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 not timely filed; however, the Board excused the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded.  While the documents pertaining to his discharge are missing, we do know that he requested to be discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  If he had been exonerated of the charges, as he alleges, we do not understand why he requested to be discharged with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that he was forced to separate; therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket Number BC-2002-04050 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Feb 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.