RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02934
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Under  Other  Than  Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He prays that the Board would review his record prior to the time that
he had the trouble with the absent without leaves (AWOLs).  When those
problems occurred he was going through some problems  with  his  then-
fiance and her pregnancy.  When he tried to get leave and couldn’t, he
would go AWOL.  He realized later  that  he  should  have  handled  it
differently.

Applicant did not provide any documents in support of the appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 February 1970 for  a
period of 4 years.

While stationed at  Nellis  AFB,  the  applicant  was  punished  under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), three times,  was
convicted  by  a  summary  court-martial,  and  was   administratively
discharged.  In the first Article 15 action, the applicant  failed  to
return from approved leave.  The applicant’s commander  found  he  was
AWOL between 14 September and  27  September  1971.   The  Article  15
punishment consisted of a reduction in grade from airman  first  class
to airman, suspended until 25 March 1972 unless  sooner  vacated,  and
forfeiture of $70 pay per month for two months.  On 28 September 1971,
the applicant was arrested on two warrants:  the first for  running  a
red light and the second for failing  to  appear.   The  next  day  he
appeared in civilian court and was sentenced to pay $90  or  serve  23
days of confinement.  Apparently he did not  pay;  the  applicant  was
released from civilian confinement on 5 October 1971.   The  applicant
did not go back to work.   On  6  October  1971  military  authorities
learned of his release the previous day, and placed the  applicant  in
absent without leave status.  The  applicant  returned  on  9  October
1971.  The applicant’s commander punished him under Article 15 for his
absence,  imposing  30  days  correctional  custody.   The   commander
subsequently remitted all but 17 days.   In  addition,  the  suspended
reduction to airman imposed from  the  first  Article  15  action  was
vacated.  On 7 January 1972, the applicant received his third  Article
15 for failing to obey the lawful order of a master sergeant.  He  was
reduced from airman to airman basic and given 30 days of  correctional
custody.  While he was serving  correctional  custody,  the  applicant
failed to return from an assigned detail.  He was AWOL from 7  January
until 27 January 1972.   For  the  offenses  of  leaving  correctional
custody and being AWOL, he was tried by a  special  court-martial  and
found guilty of both charges.  The convening  authority  approved  the
sentence as adjudged:  confinement for four months and  forfeiture  of
$75 per month for three months.

The applicant’s discharge  case  file  has  been  lost  or  destroyed.
However, information extracted from the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) Examiner’s Brief prepared in October 1983, when the file
was a part of his master personnel  records,  indicates  that,  on  17
April  1972,  the  applicant’s  group  commander  recommended  he   be
administratively  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFM   39-12,
paragraph 2-15a (Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of a  Discreditable
Nature with Civil  or  Military  Authorities).   In  addition  to  the
special court-martial conviction, the civilian arrest, and  the  three
Article 15 actions, the commander considered an incident on  23  March
1971 during which the applicant failed to obey instructions  to  leave
the day room and go to bed.  On 1 May 1971, the applicant  waived  his
right to an administrative discharge board.

While serving his sentence to confinement imposed by the special court-
martial, the applicant explained his reasons for his  misconduct.   He
stated he went AWOL in August 1971 because he did  not  like  his  Air
Force Specialty Code (Communications Center Operator).  As a result of
the Article 15, he lost his top secret security clearance,  was  taken
off his job and was placed on squadron details.  He said  that  during
each absence he visited his girlfriend and attended  Muslim  meetings.
The applicant also stated he did not want to return to duty.  In fact,
if given order to report to duty, he would refuse.

The applicant,  while  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  basic  was
separated from the Air Force on 17 May 1972,  (the  same  day  he  was
released from confinement), under the provisions of AFR 39-12 with  an
UOTHC discharge.  He had served 1 year,  10  months  and  11  days  on
active duty  One hundred forty-five (145) days  were  considered  time
lost (38 days due to AWOL, 8 days due to  civil  confinement,  and  99
days due to military confinement).

On 8 April 1983, the  applicant  requested  the  Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) upgrade his discharge  to  honorable.   On      8
December 1983, the AFDRB denied applicant’s request for an upgrade  to
honorable.  A complete copy of AFDRB package is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states that violations of the UCMJ may be  disposed  of  in
various ways, including nonjudicial punishment and  trial  by  courts-
martial.  Nonjudicial punishment is permitted by Article 15, UCMJ  (10
U.S.C. 815), and governed by the Manual  for  Courts-Martial  and  Air
Force regulations.  This procedure permits commanders  to  dispose  of
certain offenses without trial by  court-martial  unless  the  service
member objects.  Similarly,  courts-martial  are  available  for  more
serious offenses and are governed by  the  UCMJ  and  the  Manual  for
Courts-Martial.  Although  applicant  has  not  complained  about  the
nonjudicial punishment proceedings or court-martial, a review of those
proceedings indicates they were legally sufficient.

JAJM observes that the burden of proof rests  with  the  applicant  to
show error or injustice.  In their opinion, he has failed  to  produce
any persuasive evidence to carry that burden.  The punishment  imposed
was well within the parameters set  out  in  applicable  instructions.
The evidence presented by the applicant is not sufficient  to  mandate
the relief requested, and does not demonstrate an equitable basis  for
relief.  They recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the separation was within the discretion of
the discharge authority.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 17 January 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  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 5 March 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                 Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 02, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 Dec 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jan 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 03.




                             MARILYN THOMAS
                             Panel Chair