RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00600
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “Under Other than Honorable Conditions” (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to “General.”

He be allowed to retire from the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received inappropriate advice from his counsel.

The punishment he received far outweighs his alleged wrongdoing.

He honorably served the Air Force for 19 years and 9 months.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a three-page letter detailing his version of events leading to his discharge from the Air Force.  He also provides character references from several individuals that served with him in the Air Force, a letter from his sister to the Veterans Service Office, and documents from his service record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 27 May 1980.  He was progressively promoted up to the grade of technical sergeant.  A resume of his last ten Enlisted/Airman Performance Reports (EPRs/APRs) follows:

	Closeout Date				Overall Rating

	 *24 Oct 88					9
	 *24 Oct 89					9
	  24 Oct 90**					5
	  24 Oct 91					5
	  24 Oct 92					5
	  24 Oct 93					4
	  01 May 94					5
	  01 May 95					5
	  01 May 96					5
	  01 May 97					4
	  01 May 98					5
	  01 May 99					5

*  APR system
** Begins ratings under EPR system

On 2 Sep 99, the applicant provided a urine sample during a unit random urinalysis.  He tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines.  The applicant faced trial by court-martial due to his positive urinalysis.  After consulting with military counsel, on 14 Jan 00, the applicant requested that he be discharged from the Air Force in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant indicated that he understood that he was entitled to lengthy service probation consideration and to apply for retirement through the dual action processing in the office of the Secretary of the Air Force.  He waived both these entitlements.  On 21 Jan 00, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the court-martial authority, the Center Commander, through his wing commander that the applicant’s request be approved and that the applicant’s discharge be characterized as “under other than honorable conditions.”  The wing commander recommended to the center commander that the applicant’s request be approved with the same character of discharge recommended by the squadron commander.  The applicant’s spouse submitted a statement in support of her husband’s request through his military counsel.  On 7 Feb 00, the Center Staff Judge Advocate recommended to the commander that the applicant’s request be approved.  On 7 Feb 00, the Center Commander approved the applicant’s request and directed that the applicant be discharged with service characterized as “under other honorable conditions.”

On 24 Feb 00, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Triable by Court-Martial), with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He was credited with 19 years, 8 months, and 27 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS evaluated the applicant’s discharge processing.  They recommend denial of his request for upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP evaluated the applicant’s request for retirement benefits.  They recommend denial of his request.

The US Code provides that an enlisted member must have 20 years of total active federal military service to be eligible to voluntarily retire.  Applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge.

The FY93 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 102-484, 23 Oct 92 provided the Secretary of Defense with authority to prescribe regulations and policies regarding the criteria for eligibility for 15-year retirement and approval of applications for retirement.  The applicant was not eligible to apply for retirement under the 15-year retirement program based on the fact that he was pending involuntary separation action.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 Mar 03 for his review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 his case and note that he had an overall excellent record of performance up until the time of his positive urinalysis for drug use.  However, he has failed to present sufficient evidence that he was the victim of an error or injustice regarding his discharge from service.  While it is possible to conclude in retrospect that he made the wrong decision to accept discharge in lieu of court-martial, the decision was his, albeit at the advice of counsel.  It appears that he made what he felt was the best decision at the time, given the serious charge that he faced and the possible outcome of trial by court-martial.  While it is regrettable that his Air Force career, given the length and character of his service, came to such an inglorious end, we do not find sufficient evidence that the actions of his chain of command to approve his discharge in lieu of court-martial were in error or unjust.  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 Docket Number BC-2003-00600 in Executive Session on 21 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 14 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair