RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00082
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable, his narrative reason for separation be  changed
from “Triable by Court Martial” to “Convenience  of  the  Government,”
and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be changed to “1.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  discharged  for  allegations  of  adultery  and  misuse  of  a
government vehicle.  He admits he had an affair, but he did not misuse
a government vehicle.  He requested a  discharge  in  lieu  of  court-
martial on the advice of his Area Defense Counsel (ADC)  and  to  save
any embarrassment to the Air Force and his family.  In his 13 years of
service, he never received an Article 15 or any such  reprimands.   He
would like to resume his service to his country, if not on active duty
then in the Reserves.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
a letter from his  congressman,  character  reference  letters  and  a
college  transcript.   The  applicant’s  complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 1 Apr 87.  He continued to reenlist, with his last reenlistment  on
26 Feb 99 for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively  promoted  to
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date  of
rank of 1 Jun 94.

On 9 Aug 00, the applicant was charged with violation of  Article  92,
UCMJ (dereliction of duties in that  he  willfully  failed  to  use  a
government vehicle for official purposes only, between 15 Jun  99  and
30 Jun 00); and, for violation of Article 134, UCMJ (adultery  between
15 Jun 99 and 30 Jun 00).  His commander recommended  the  charges  be
referred to trial  by  special  court-martial.   On  21  Aug  00,  the
applicant and his defense counsel requested a UOTHC discharge in  lieu
of trial by court-martial.  On 5 Sep 00, the applicant’s  request  for
discharge in lieu of court-martial  was  approved  and  the  discharge
authority directed that he be issued  a  UOTHC  Discharge  certificate
because of a pattern of misconduct.

On 11 Sep 00, the applicant received an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208
(Triable by Court-Martial).  He had completed a total of 13  years,  5
months and 1 day and was serving in the grade of staff sergeant  (E-5)
at the time of discharge.  He received an RE code of 2B, which defined
means, “Separated  with  a  general  or  under  other  than  honorable
conditions discharge.”

Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable,  change
of reason for discharge and RE  code  was  denied  by  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 3 Apr  01.   A  copy  of  the  AFDRB
Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the  application  be  denied.   DPPRS  stated
that, based upon the documentation in  the  file,  the  discharge  was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any  new  evidence
or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an  upgrade
of his discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE stated that the RE  code  of  2B  is  correct.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  21
June 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, other than his own  assertions,  he  has  provided  no
evidence establishing  that  his  under  discharge  was  unfounded  or
unjust.   The  applicant  has   furnished   no   persuasive   evidence
demonstrating that his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial was anything other than a knowing and voluntary act.  We found
no evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards
in effecting the  applicant’s  discharge,  that  pertinent  Air  Force
instructions were violated or that the applicant was not afforded  all
the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We have  noted
the character references provided for our review and do not find  them
sufficient to support the approval of  the  requested  relief  on  the
basis of clemency.  Our  finding  in  this  regard  is  based  on  the
seriousness of the applicant’s infractions against the good order  and
discipline of the service, the  position  of  responsibility  he  held
within the military community, and the short period of time which  has
elapsed since his separation.  In view of the above and in the absence
of evidence that the applicant’s  substantial  rights  were  violated,
that  the  information  contained  in  the  discharge  case  file  was
erroneous, or that his superiors abused their discretionary authority,
we find no basis in the  available  record  upon  which  to  favorably
consider this application.
_________________________________________________________________

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 27 August 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Mar 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Jun 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.


                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair