RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00345
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge upgraded.  He gave 10 years of his life to the  Air
Force and enjoyed every day.  He indicates that he is patriotic and  devoted
to the military.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 August 1973.

Special Court-Martial Order, dated 6 February 1980, indicates the  applicant
was tried and convicted for the following reasons:

Charge I:  Violation of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Article 129.

Specification:  In that the applicant did on or about 9  November  1979,  in
the nighttime, burglariously break and enter the dwelling house of a  master
sergeant with intent to commit larceny therein.

Charge II:  Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121.

Specification:  In that the applicant did  on  or  about  9  November  1979,
steal a motorcycle fairing, of a value of about $200.00, the property  of  a
master sergeant.

Findings of the Specifications and Charges:  Guilty.

He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three  months,  forfeiture
of $450.00 per month for three months, and a reduction in grade to E-4.

On 8 January 1980, the sentence was adjudged.

On 18 July 1983, a special court-martial charge was  preferred  against  the
applicant  for  one  specification  alleging  larceny  of   government-owned
gasoline valued at $157.50.

In an undated  request,  the  applicant  requested  a  Chapter  4  Discharge
(Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial).

The undated  request  for  discharge  in  lieu  of  trial  by  court-martial
indicates that the commander recommended the request  be  approved  for  the
following reasons:

      The applicant had no rehabilitative potential for further  utilization
in the Air Force because he  engaged  in  larcenous  conduct  after  he  had
previously been convicted of burglary and larceny in 1980.   The  conviction
did not rehabilitate him and it is not likely any  future  conviction  would
rehabilitate him either.

      A discharge of the applicant in lieu of courts-martial would not  have
a detrimental impact on morale and discipline  because  it  was  well  known
that he had a previous conviction and members  of  the  squadron  would  not
feel  he  was  getting  away  with  larceny.   In  either  case,  (trial  or
discharge) he would probably have both a conviction and a bad  discharge  on
his record.

      The applicant did not apparently commit the criminal  offense  with  a
view towards securing an administrative discharge from the Air Force.

      There was a potential proof problem at  trial  since  the  element  of
ownership was provable only by circumstantial evidence.

On 4 August 1983, after consulting with counsel the applicant  requested  to
be discharged from the Air Force in  lieu  of  trial  by  court-martial  and
indicated he understood he could  receive  an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

On 11 August 1983 the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate  and  the  Staff  Judge
Advocate recommended approval of the applicant’s request  for  discharge  in
lieu of court-martial.  They also recommended he be discharged with  service
characterized as under other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC),  without
probation and rehabilitation.




On  12  August  1983,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge.

On 24 August 1983, the applicant was discharged with  service  characterized
as under other than honorable conditions  (UOTHC)  in  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, (Discharge In Lieu Of Trial  By
Court-Martial).  He served 9 years, 11 months and 25 days  of  total  active
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no  other
facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  He has  not  filed  a  timely
request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 May 2003, 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.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we  find  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  applicant’s
discharge as a result of his conviction by court-martial  was  erroneous  or
unjust.   While  the  applicant  believes  his  UOTHC  discharge  should  be
upgraded, we note that the convening authority approved the UOTHC  discharge
and  the  commander  determined  the  UOTHC  discharge  was  an  appropriate
consequence that accurately described the applicant’s military  service  and
his crimes.  The Board notes that the applicant has provided no evidence  to
support his claim.  In view of the foregoing  and  considering  the  serious
nature of his infraction, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of
the Air Force and adopt  the  rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  that  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, based on the  evidence
of record, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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-2002-
00345 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 April 2003.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 May 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 2003.




                       JOSEPH A. ROJ
                       Panel Chair