ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  80-03066
                                                  97-02285
            INDEX CODES:  A93.35, 111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge and any and all records and  or  system(s)  of
records or information of the Department of the Air Force relating  to
his discharge be voided.

His records and any other records and/or system(s) of  records  and/or
information of the Department of the Air Force be  corrected  to  show
his retroactive restoration to active duty  in  the  Air  Force  in  a
commissioned status, effective 10 Oct 75.

His records and any other records and/or system(s) of  records  and/or
information of the Department of the Air Force be  corrected  to  show
that he served on active duty in a  commissioned  status  in  the  Air
Force from 10 Oct 75 through 31 Aug 80, or such other date as  may  be
deemed appropriate.

His records and any other records and/or system(s) of  records  and/or
information of the Department of the Air Force be  corrected  to  show
that on 31 Aug 80, or such other date as may be deemed appropriate, he
was released from active duty and that on 1 Sep  80,  he  was  retired
from the Air Force under the provisions of 10 USC 8911 by  reasons  of
years of service.

His records and any other records and/or system(s) of  records  and/or
information of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force  relating  to  the
administrative discharge proceedings conducted under the provisions of
former 10 USC 1181 and AFR  36-2;  Office  of  Special  Investigations
Investigation Report File Number 19D15-167, District 19, Field  Office
File Number 52-3003, dated 9 Sep 74, Sacramento, California,  and  all
related records and/or system(s) of records and/or information to  the
Office of Special Investigations of the Department of the  Air  Force;
and (c) any and all records relating to his application for review  of
discharge under the provisions of 10 USC 1553 be voided and expunged.

A nonprejudicial statement that he was not rated during the period  10
Oct 75 to 31 Aug 80 through no fault of his own be  entered  into  his
official departmental records, including,  but  not  limited  to,  his
official military personnel records and officer selection folder.

He be afforded any other  and/or  further  relief  as  may  be  deemed
appropriate to accord him full and complete relief.

His Officer Effectiveness Report closing  18  Jul  75  be  voided  and
removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge in 1975 was made in error  and  was  unjust  within  the
meaning of 10 U.S.C. 1552 (that  a  plea  of  guilty  and  stipulation
wherein applicant admitted the conduct that  was  the  basis  for  his
discharge was improvident  and  ill  advised,  and  that  his  conduct
constituted nothing more than an error in judgment).

The adverse decision of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) that considered his
case and its affirmance by the various AFR 36-2 reviewing  authorities
were materially and legally in error, and most of all unjust, in  that
the evidence at the time warranted his retention in the Air Force.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) erred in not granting him
full relief.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  counsel  briefs
(counsel has since withdrawn),  supportive  statements,  and  numerous
other documents associated with the matter under review.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

The applicant is a former Regular Air Force officer who was discharged
under the provisions  of  AFR  36-12  (Involuntary  Discharge:   Board
Action (Unacceptable Conduct)) and was furnished a general  discharge.
He was credited with 15 years of active duty service.

On 7 Jan 81, the  Board  considered  and  denied  an  application  for
correction of military records pertaining to the applicant,  in  which
he requested that the discharge order be vacated and he be restored to
active duty with time in service as though  he  was  never  discharged
(see AFBCMR 80-03066, with Exhibits A through E).

On 28 Jan 91, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  considered
the applicant’s request  for  upgrade  of  his  general  discharge  to
honorable and change of the  reason  for  his  discharge.   The  AFDRB
upgraded discharge  to  honorable.   However,  the  AFDRB  denied  the
applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed the applicant’s most
recent submission and provided  an  advisory  opinion  addressing  the
applicant’s  request  that  his  Officer  Effectiveness  Report  (OER)
closing 18 Jul 75 be voided and  removed  from  his  records.   DPPPAB
recommended  denial  of  his  request.   DPPPAB  indicated  that   the
applicant has provided no new relevant evidence  to  substantiate  the
OER rendered to him was erroneous or inaccurate.

A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  the  applicant’s  most
recent submission and indicated that he did not identify any  specific
errors in the discharge processing nor provided  facts  which  warrant
the voiding of the discharge he received.

A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The Staff Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  the  applicant’s  most
recent submission and recommended  denial  of  the  requested  relief.
With respect to the partial relief afforded by the AFDRB, JA noted the
applicant’s contention that the action constituted proof  of  material
and legal error.   In  their  view,  it  clearly  did  not.   What  it
represented was an act of clemency  on  the  part  of  that  board  in
recognition  of  the  applicant’s  good  character  both  before   and
subsequent to the acts leading to his discharge and his otherwise good
military service.  In  JA’s  opinion,  the  applicant  has  failed  to
established by  relevant  evidence  the  existence  of  any  error  of
injustice warranting relief.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
17 Aug 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or  injustice.   Applicant’s  complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and  his  contentions  duly  noted.
However, we did not find them sufficient to override the  evidence  of
record.  The available evidence  reveals that the applicant was  given
a general discharge for unacceptable conduct after pleading guilty  to
theft of government property and voluntarily signing a stipulation  of
fact during  his  Board  of  Inquiry  (BOI).   No  evidence  has  been
presented which shows to our satisfaction that  the  discharge  action
was improper or contrary to the provisions of the discharge  directive
under which  it  was  effected.   We  opine  that  the  applicant  has
presented claims which are essentially the same  as  those  previously
considered and rejected by this Board and the Court  of  Claims.   Any
new arguments proffered by him, in our view, are  merely  attempts  to
obscure the overwhelming facts which resulted in his discharge;  i.e.,
his plea of guilty and his stipulation to the truth of the allegations
against him.  We note that the  AFDRB  has  upgraded  the  applicant’s
general discharge to honorable, which he contends constitutes proof of
material and legal error.  However, the AFDRB found no impropriety  in
the discharge action, but upgraded  the  discharge  on  the  basis  of
clemency, in  recognition  of  his  good  character  both  before  and
subsequent to the acts leading to his discharge  and  his  other  good
military service.  We concur with that decision and believe it is  the
only basis for any corrective action in this case..  In  view  of  the
above, and in the absence of clear and convincing  evidence  that  the
applicant’s substantial rights were  violated,  that  the  information
contained in the discharge case file was erroneous, his plea of guilty
and stipulation were coerced, there  was  an  abuse  of  discretionary
authority, or his OPR closing 18 Jul 75 was an inaccurate depiction of
his performance at the time it was originally  prepared,  we  conclude
that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought  in  this
appeal.

2.  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   issues   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 probable  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 Dec 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Letter, counsel, dated 8 Jul 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 17 Nov 97.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Jun 98.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 28 Jul 98.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Aug 98.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair