RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01536

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is trying to get a job with the county, city or state.  When he was asked why he was discharged, he told them the reason and type of discharge he had.  Most places can accept what he had done, they can see that he has learned from his mistakes and have moved on.  His first job after his discharge was at Miami Valley International Trucks.  The employer was hesitant on his interview, but he was honest and up front with them.  He was employed with them for 15 years.  After 13 years there, he realized that he wasn’t going anywhere, so he started looking for a better job, basically, with the city, county and state.  He was interviewed by both the city and the county, and was turned down by the city because of the type of discharge he had.  He is not sure about why the county did not hire him.

In November of 2002, he did accept a position with a private business; this employer did not ask about his discharge.  He did put it on the application along with the branch of service and the length of service.  While his current job is good, he did fall short of his goal for a job with the city, county and state.  He has the experience and certifications for those jobs, but some people see his past and judge him on a mistake, but he has learned from his mistakes and has proven that over the last fifteen years.  He also will not be dishonest about the mistakes he has made.  

The purpose of this letter is to request to have his discharge upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Feel free to access any personal information the Board may have on him over the past fifteen years since he was discharged, and they will see he has learned from his mistakes.  He would greatly appreciate the Board’s consideration on upgrading his discharge status.

In support of his application, he submits a personal letter.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 20 May 1985.  The commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (resignation for the good of the service) with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).  He was discharge on 8 April 1988 in the grade of airman first class.  He served 2 years, 10 months and 19 days of total active service.

On 28 July 1987, the applicant was convicted by Special Court-Martial for illegal use of LSD and marijuana.  He pleaded guilty to both charges.  He as sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of $438 pay per month for six months, confinement for six months and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  However, upon review, the Convening Authority dismissed the LSD charge and modified the sentence.  On appeal, the Air Force Court of Military Review threw out the sentence due to pre-trial legal error, but left the marijuana conviction and ordered a rehearing on the sentence only.  By the time this decision was reached, the applicant was on appellate leave in Kettering Ohio.  The base determined a rehearing was impracticable and on 10 March 1988, member requested a discharge in lieu of trail by court-martial under AFR 39-10, Chapter 4.  On 11 April 1988, the convening authority (Court Martial Order #6) approved the discharge under Chapter 4 and overturned the results of the July Special Court-Martial.  On 31 April 1988, the Discharge Authority approved the discharge and ordered an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 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:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he made a mistake 16 years ago, and has learned from that mistake.  He thinks over the past 16 years, he has proven that he is an upstanding citizen and has never repeated the mistakes of his past.  Instead, he has learned from his mistakes and has become a better person because of them.  Unfortunately, not everyone can see this, and he has found, as he stated in his first letter, as he is trying to improve his life and set higher goals for himself by obtaining better employment.  But when someone sees that he has an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, he is still being judged for a mistake he made 16 years ago.  Had he known 16 years ago that this error in judgment would still be haunting him today, yes, he would have pursued this matter sooner.  He thinks he has more than proven himself as having learned from his mistake.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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, the Board excused the failure to timely file.

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We find no improperiety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Although the applicant states that he has been a productive member of society for over 16 years, he has not provided sufficient information of post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that his discharge should be upgraded based on clemency.  Should he provide such documentation, we would be willing to reconsider his appeal.  In view of the above, 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-2003-01536 in Executive Session on 21 August 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 10 Jun 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Jul 03.

	
	Panel Chair