RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02311
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His dishonorable discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his dishonorable discharge was improper and harsh since  it  was
during a time period of 1 year  and  5  months  of  service  with  no  other
criminal record.  Secondly, he has taken all responsibility for his  actions
and blames no one, but he feels the military judge  overlooked  the  driving
force of his actions.  He explained at the trial that he had been  diagnosed
with a borderline personality with dependent issues relating  to  his  wife.
He further states that he would find it difficult to be apart from his  wife
because of a fear of losing her.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits portions of  his  record  of
trial  to  include  the  testimony  of  the  psychiatrist  who  treated  and
diagnosed his condition; the testimony of his  father;  a  letter  from  his
wife;  a  list  of  character  references;  a  summary  of  his  educational
achievements; his transcripts; a summary  of  his  post-service  employment;
and his resume.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  30  November  1988,  for  a
period of four years.

Applicant was promoted to the grade of airman first class  on      30  March
1990.

On 1 October 1990, applicant was convicted by a general  court-martial.   He
had six charges against him.  Charge I:  Article 85, with one  specification
for absenting himself from  his  organization  without  authority  and  with
intent to remain away therefrom permanently, and did  remain  so  absent  in
desertion until he was apprehended on or  about  23  July  1990.   Applicant
pled not guilty, but was found guilty of a violation of Article 86.   Charge
II:  Article 86, with one specification for failure to go to  his  appointed
place of duty on or about 10 May 1990.  Charge III:  Article 121,  with  two
specifications of larceny of nine blank checks, of some value,  from  on  or
about from 19 April 1990 to on or  about  4  May  1990;  and  larceny  of  a
temporary Texas Buyers Tag, of  some  value,  on  or  about  17  July  1990.
Charge IV:  Article 123, with six specifications of forgery of a  check,  in
the amount of $50.00, on or about 20 April 1990; forgery of a check, in  the
amount of $120.00, on or about 21 April 1990;  applicant  pled  not  guilty,
(this specification was withdrawn after the applicant’s plea); forgery of  a
check, in the amount of $260.00, on or about 23 April 1990;  applicant  pled
not guilty, (this specification was withdrawn after the  applicant’s  plea);
forgery of a check, in the amount of  $350.00,  on  or  about  3  May  1990;
forgery of a check, in the amount of  $400.00,  on  or  about  3  May  1990;
forgery of a check, in the amount of $350.00,  on  or  about   4  May  1990.
Charge  V:   Article  123a,  with  two  specifications  of  wrongfully   and
unlawfully making and uttering a worthless share draft to the  Holiday  Inn,
on or about 15 May 1990, in the amount of $55.37; wrongfully and  unlawfully
making and uttering a worthless share draft to the Holiday Inn, on or  about
17 May 1990, in the amount of $85.00.  Charge VI:  Article 134,  with  three
specifications of dishonorable failure to pay a just debt, in the amount  of
$408.28, on or about 18 May  1990;  unlawfully  concealing  a  stolen  motor
vehicle, of a value of more than $1000.00, from on or about 17 July 1990  to
on or about 20 July 1990; and for dishonorably failing to pay a  just  debt,
in the amount of $45.00, on or about 20 July 1990.

Applicant  pled  guilty  to  all  charges   except   Charge   I,   and   all
specifications except specifications 2 and 3 of  Charge  IV.   Sentence  was
adjudged  on  1  October  1990.   He  received  a   dishonorable  discharge,
confinement for 30 months and  a  reduction  to  airman  basic  (E-1).   The
sentence approved, and,  except  for  the  part  extending  to  dishonorable
discharge, ordered executed..

Applicant’s overall rating on his EPR rendered for the period   30  November
1988 through 29 July 1990 was a “1”.

Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on  10  December  1992,  in  the
grade of airman basic, under the provisions of General  Court-Martial  Order
No. 25, and furnished a dishonorable discharge.  He had  completed  4  years
total active service with 2 years 6 months and 16 days lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report.  A complete copy of the
FBI Report is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Associate Chief, Military Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,  reviewed  the
application and states that the facts of this case do not warrant  upgrading
the applicant’s discharge.  While it is commendable that the  applicant  has
apparently turned his life around, one can logically infer that  the  court-
martial punishment helped, at lease in part,  to  motivate  him  to  do  so.
They state the case file accurately reflects the action taken  by  reviewing
authorities  so  correction  of  clerical  or   administrative   errors   as
contemplated under 10 U.S.C.  1552(f)(1)  is  unnecessary.   Clemency  under
Section 1552(f) is not appropriate because the applicant  has  submitted  no
evidence  that  his  court-martial  was  improperly  convened  or  conducted
(Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 November 1998, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We find  no  impropriety  in  the
characterization of applicant's  discharge.   It  appears  that  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and  we
do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated  or
that applicant was not afforded all the rights  to  which  entitled  at  the
time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and the characterization of the  discharge  was  appropriate  to
the existing circumstances.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis  of  clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant’s overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related  to  post-service  activities  and
accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 8 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Oct 98
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Nov 98.




                             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                             Panel Chair