RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02456
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the time period in question, he was 25 years of age and made a grave mistake in judgment as an officer.  Although he was encouraged not to cooperate with the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), he chose to tell the truth about his indiscretions with the airman.  The airman he had the relationship with lied and grossly exaggerated his actions.  His base commander told him the airman’s statement was so specific that she must be telling the truth.  He received an Article 15 and was ultimately discharged.  His career up to that point had been exemplary.

He did not fight this injustice at the time because his actions during the time period in question were wrong and he did not want to embarrass his family with a possible court-martial.  Secondly, he knew that by fighting the charges against him, he would lose because he was being threatened with a court-martial and his admissions were enough to find him guilty.

He is now 42 and has an amazing family.  Since his discharge, he has completed his coursework for a Master’s in Criminal Justice.  He has been a police officer for the xxxxxxxx State University for 16 years.  He has learned from his mistakes and is a model citizen.  Except for his lack of judgment during the incident time, he was proud of the time he spent in the Air Force.  

The applicant's complete submission, with an attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, prior to enlisting in the Air Force, served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve from 6 June 1983 to 2 March 1984.  

On 5 July 1985, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force (RegAF) as a staff sergeant (SSgt) for a period of four years.  The applicant subsequently entered Officer Training School (OTS).  On 3 October 1985, he was honorably discharged to accept a commission.  He was appointed as a second lieutenant (2Lt), Reserve of the Air Force, on 4 October 1985 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 4 October 1985.  He was promoted 4 October 1987 to first lieutenant (1Lt).

On 9 March 1988, the applicant received an Article 15 on or about 21 October 1987 to on or about 1 January 1988 for wrongfully socially and sexually fraternizing with an enlisted person.  For this misconduct, his punishment consisted of forfeiture of $850.00 of pay per month for two months.

On 29 March 1988, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge for wrongful fraternization with an enlisted member under his supervision, under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 36-2, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7d.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him; to submit statements in his own behalf; or tender his resignation.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter and that military counsel was made available to assist him.

A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient to support the discharge action.

On 12 April 1988, the applicant submitted his resignation in lieu of further action under AFR 36-12.  He further acknowledged that if his resignation was accepted he would be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge unless the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) determined he should receive an honorable discharge.

On 29 June 1988, by direction of the President, the SAF accepted the applicant’s resignation and directed he be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 29 July 1988, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 36-12, Voluntary Resignation:  Misconduct, Moral or Professional Dereliction:  Serious or Recurring with a general discharge.  He served 2 years, 9 months and 26 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

Applicant’s OPR profile as a lieutenant is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			 12 May 86 		1-1-1
			 12 Nov 86		1-1-1
			 12 Mar 87		1-1-1
			 30 Sep 87		1-1-1
			 14 Mar 88		2-3-3

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided, they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states fraternization between officers and enlisted was prevalent at all levels in Rhein Main during that time period.  He also provided two photographs of officers and enlisted personnel fraternizing at a social gathering (Exhibit F). 

On 13 October 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provided documentation pertaining to his activities since leaving military service (Exhibit G).

The applicant further states his performance before and after the misconduct was exemplary (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The Board has considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and in view of the egregiousness of the misconduct while the applicant was on active duty, on balance, does not believe clemency is warranted.  The applicant’s fraternization with a subordinate prejudiced good order and discipline of the unit and compromised his effectiveness as an officer.  Although the applicant has provided some statements concerning post-service conduct, the Board finds these statements insufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.  However, should he provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service conduct, this Board would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration.  Therefore, the Board does not recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02456 in Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Oct 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, undated.