RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00184
INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 July 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UTOHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered mental duress during his divorce which caused the problems leading to his discharge.  Only recently has his mental state stabilized in order to address his discharge

In support of his application, he provided a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and a copy of his divorce decree.  A copy of the applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 October 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 24 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1982.  The applicant received five enlisted performance reports during the period 1 October 1979 through 1 October 1984 with overall ratings of eight, eight, eight, eight, and six.  

On 21 March 1984, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for the applicant’s failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, chose not to consult counsel, waived his right to demand a trial by court-martial, chose not to make an oral presentation; however, submitted a written presentation in his own behalf.  After considering the applicant’s written submission, the commander imposed punishment consisting of base restriction for 14 days and 14 days of extra duty.  The applicant chose not to appeal the punishment received.  

On 8 June 1984, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for making himself absent from his place of duty, on or about 16 May 1984, without authority.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted counsel, waived his right to demand a trial by court-martial, chose not to make an oral presentation; however, submitted a written presentation in his own behalf.  After considering his written submission, the commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction in grade to airman first class, forfeiture of $300 per month for two months, and correctional custody for a period of 30 consecutive days.  The portion of punishment which provided for forfeiture of $300 per month for two months was suspended until 7 November 1984, at which time; it was remitted without further action.  On 22 June 1984, the applicant submitted a written statement appealing the punishment.  On 9 July 1984, his commander denied the applicant’s appeal. 

On 19 October 1984, his squadron commander preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for one specification of larceny of an automobile valued at $7,130.28 in violation of Article 121 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  On 28 November 1984, additional charges included larceny of furniture valued in excess of $700 in violation of Article 121 of the UCMJ, wrongful use of marijuana in violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ, and absent without leave authority in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  

On 10 November 1984, after consulting counsel, the applicant requested he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 11 December 1984, his squadron commander recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request to the group commander.  The group commander disagreed with the squadron commander, and recommended approval of the applicant’s request to the discharge authority, stating the applicant’s discharge would be in the best interest of the Air Force.  On 18 December 1984, after the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed a UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

The applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge on 27 December 1984 with a separation code of KFS (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial) and a reenlistment code of 2B (discharged under general or other-than-honorable conditions).  He served five years, one month, and nine days on active duty.  The applicant’s time lost was 48 days due to AWOL and military confinement.

On 23 September 1986, the AFDRB held a personal hearing in New York to consider the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge from UOTHC to fully honorable.  The AFDRB denied the applicant’s request. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that based on the file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) previously reviewed and considered all the facts of record and concluded a change in the type or nature of his discharge was not warranted.  DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  It is DPPRS’s opinion that the applicant provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service.  The 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 4 March 2005 for review and response 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The characterization of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 12 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00184 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Feb 05.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 05.

						
									Chair