RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01983
							INDEX CODE:  110.00
    							COUNSEL:  XXXX
    							HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant proffers no contentions.  Applicant’s submission, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 July 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 6 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), with a date of rank of 1 September 1983.  He was reduced to the grade of airman first class (E-3), with a date of rank of 4 April 1984, pursuant to an Article 15.  He received four Airman Performance Reports closing 26 April 1984, 1 December 1983, 1 December 1982 and 14 July 1981, in which the overall evaluations were 7, 7, 9 and 9, respectively.  During these reporting periods, the applicant received three AF Forms 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheets, in which he was cited as being a highly productive and professional individual.  

On 15 February 1984, he received a letter of reprimand for failure to pay attention to detail by failing to show the desired aptitude and fortitude in becoming proficient in his assigned specialty.  

On 4 April 1984, he was charged with committing the offense of carnal knowledge.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed.  He received a reduction to airman first class, forfeiture of $300 of his pay per month for two months and restriction to the limits of Offutt AFB for 60 consecutive days. 

On 27 April 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against him under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-49a, for misconduct (Sexual Deviation).  The applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation and that a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his rights and, after consulting counsel, he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and concurred with the squadron commander that the applicant not be considered for probation and rehabilitation.  On 16 May 1984, the discharge authority directed that he be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct – Sexual Deviation) and received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  He served 3 years, 10 months, and 2 days on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, they conclude that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 September 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response.  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 error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe that the information in his discharge case file is erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  In addition, he has provided no information to support clemency on the basis of a successful post-service adjustment.  In the absence of such evidence, his 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 14 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01983:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 04 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Aug 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.