RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02884
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that the Air Force was unjust.  He never stole any money ($100 is all that is missing from previous date report in the commissary at Goodfellow AFB, TX).

Applicant did not submit any documents in support of the appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 August 1985, in the grade of airman airman basic for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class  (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of 26 December 1986.  He was promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) on 26 August 1988.  He received three Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 25 August 1986, 25 August 1987 and 25 August 1988, in which the overall evaluations were “9”, “9” and “8.”  He was honorably discharged on 13 June 1989.  He served three years, nine months and 18 days on active duty.  On 14 June 1989, he reenlisted in the grade of senior airman for a period of four years.  He was appointed a sergeant on 1 August 1989.  On 5 July 1990, his noncommissioned officer (NCO) status was vacated and he reverted to the grade of senior airman because of an Article 15 (dated 27 June 1990) he received for failing to complete a job-oriented training class.  His NCO appointment was restored on 2 January 1991.

On 6 January 1992, court-martial charges were referred against the applicant for stealing $100 from the Air Force Commissary at Goodfellow AFB TX in July 1991 and for making a false official statement.  It was indicated that the applicant made a false official statement during the investigation that he had counted the money in the commissary safe prior to opening on 15 July 1991, which he knew to be false.  Applicant consulted with a civil attorney and on 14 February 1992, he requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with the understanding he could receive a UOTHC discharge.  Military legal services reviewed the case and found it to be legally sufficient and recommended acceptance of his request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  Additionally, his commanders recommended a UOTHC discharge.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and ordered a UOTHC discharge on 16 March 1992.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of sergeant, was discharged from the Air Force on 23 April 1992 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial) with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served six years, seven months and 28 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 25 January 1996.  A copy of the AFDRB hearing record is attached.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the reason he decided not to go to court was because the attorney had his mind already made up and he felt that he was not going to defend him properly.  He also feels that the military attorney gave the impression that she was in accordance with the commander’s decision.  He believes that the Air Force made a lot of mistakes.  Members of the military legal services are working for the government and he believes they made a bad recommendation.  He will keep fighting to get his discharge upgraded because he believes that his character is worthy to be admired.  He believes that his principles are much better than many honorable people in offices of the government.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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, 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.  Evidence has not been presented that would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust.  Based on the contents of a Security Police Report of Investigative, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant.  The applicant thereafter requested administrative separation in lieu of trial.  The applicant requests relief from this Board, asserting he was not guilty.  In cases of this nature, we are not inclined to disturb the discretionary judgments of commanding officers absent a strong showing of abuse of that authority.  The applicant has provided no documentary evidence showing his superior commanders abused their discretionary authority, his substantial rights were violated, he was miscounseled, or his decision to request separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was coerced in any way.  In the absence of such evidence, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 19 November 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Oct 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 13 Oct 03.