RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01621
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has changed his life, has paid his debt and is an upstanding citizen.  He supports his two children and has been arrested only once (for DUI) since his discharge.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Air Force on 20 July 1982.  On        11 August 1983, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for misconduct.  The basis for the action was on 24 May 1983 he was convicted by the Common Pleas Court County of Cambria, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug Device & Cosmetic Act, State of Pennsylvania and three counts of criminal conspiracy and sentenced to imprisonment for each of the counts (not less than 8 months nor more than 16 months).  On 29 June 1983, he was convicted of theft by unlawful taking or disposition and sentenced to two years probation and payment of court charges.  

After being advised of his rights, member waived his rights to the board and to submit statements in his own behalf.  He also waived his right to an attorney.  Case was reviewed by the base legal services and found to be legally sufficient.  His commander and legal authorities recommended acceptance of the unconditional waiver and issued a UOTHC discharge.  

The discharge authority approved the discharge on 9 September 1983 and directed a UOTHC discharge without P&R.  He had 264 days lost time, which is non-payable.  He served 1 year, 1 month and 20 days on active duty.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 18 January 1985.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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 AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice to warrant changing his UOTHC discharge to honorable.  We find no impropriety 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.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  Applicant has not provided sufficient information of post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that applicant has overcome the behavioral traits, which caused the discharge.  Should applicant provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to applicant's good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-01621 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 5 May 03 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.

	Panel Chair