RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00338
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was reassured that after several  years  his  discharge  would  be
upgraded to honorable.  He served his country  faithfully  for  three
and a half years.  He realizes the errors of his ways and regrets the
shame he has caused to the country, the Air Force and himself.

The applicant did not submit any documents in support of the  appeal.
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21  August  1981.   He
was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class  on  21
February 1983. His Airman Performance Report (APR) profile since 1982
reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

       20 Aug 82                        7
       20 Aug 83                        9
       16 Feb 84                        8
       16 Feb 85                        7

On 2 May 1985, the commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending a discharge for a pattern of  misconduct  consisting  of
discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities.   He
recommended a UOTHC discharge.  Misconduct included three Article 15s
(31 October 1981, for larceny from the Base Exchange; 21  July  1982,
for failure to go and making a false official statement;  and  on  14
January 1985, for failure to go).  In January 1985, the applicant had
a positive urinalysis test for marijuana.  On 19 March 1985,  he  was
court-martialed for  larceny  of  a  wristwatch  and  gold  ring  and
received  three  months  of  confinement,  reduction  in  grade   and
forfeiture of $200 for  three  months.   Additionally,  he  had  four
Letters  of  Reprimand  for  financial  irresponsibility.   Applicant
waived his right to a board contingent  upon  receipt  of  a  general
discharge.  On 16 May 1985, his commander  rejected  the  conditional
waiver.  On 21 May 1985, the  applicant  submitted  an  unconditional
waiver.  The base legal services  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it
legally  sufficient  to  support  the   discharge   and   recommended
acceptance.  The commander and separation authorities  recommended  a
UOTHC discharge without  probation  and  rehabilitation  (P&R).   The
Discharge Authority approved  the  separation  and  ordered  a  UOTHC
discharge without P&R on 3 July 1985.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman,  was  discharged
from the Air Force on 11 July 1985 under the provisions of AFR  39-10
(misconduct - pattern of discreditable involvement with  military  or
civil authorities) with an  under  other  than  honorable  conditions
(UOTHC) discharge.  He was credited with 3 years, 10  months  and  21
days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of
the discharge authority.  Therefore, they  recommend  denial  of  the
applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the evaluation  is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 April 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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.   The
applicant has provided  no  evidence  showing  that  the  information
contained  in  his  discharge  case  file  was  erroneous,  that  his
substantial rights were violated, that his  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority, or  that  his  service  warranted  a  better
characterization than the one he received.  The passage of  time,  in
and  of  itself,  does  not  provide   an   appropriate   basis   for
recharacterization of a  former  member’s  service  characterization.
Without evidence from the applicant showing that  he  has  maintained
the standards of good citizenship since his separation,  we  have  no
basis to recommend his request for an upgrade  of  his  discharge  be
granted based on clemency.  In view  of  the  foregoing  and  in  the
absence  of  evidence  attesting  to  a  successful   post   service-
adjustment, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 May 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.


                                  PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                  Panel Chair