RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01414

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In essence, that his discharge should be upgraded based on clemency.

The applicant states that while the type of  discharge  was  appropriate  at
the time, it was based on isolated  incidents  and  not  indicative  of  his
character of behavior.  Since his discharge, he  has  not  engaged  in  that
behavior, has been employed  by  a  major  telecommunications  company,  and
graduated from college at the top of his class, with  a  double  major.   He
requests his discharge be upgraded so  that  he  may  enter  the  Air  Force
Reserve.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  9 November  1978  for  a
period of four years.

On 24 October 1979, the commander notified the applicant of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  for  violating  Article  111  (i.e.,  drunken  or
reckless driving).  Specifically, for operating a vehicle while drunk on  21
October 1979.   After consulting  military  legal  counsel,  he  waived  his
right to a trial by court-martial and accepted the  nonjudicial  punishment.
After considering the applicant’s oral submission, on 9 November  1979,  the
commander determined that he did commit  the  alleged  offense  and  imposed
nonjudicial punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman  basic
(suspended until 19 April 1980)  and  forfeiture  of  $50.00.   He  did  not
appeal the punishment.

On 18 March 1980, the commander again notified him of his intent  to  impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ  for  violating  Article
92 (i.e., failure to  obey  an  order  or  regulation).   Specifically,  for
failing to obey the lawful order of his  superior  commissioned  officer  to
not drive a vehicle on Luke AFB from 19 November 1979 to 18  November  1980,
which he did on 4 March 1980.  He acknowledged his  right  to  consult  with
military legal counsel and chose  not  to  avail  himself  to  counsel.   He
waived his right to a trial by court-martial and  accepted  the  nonjudicial
punishment.  After considering his oral submission, on 19  March  1980,  the
commander determined that he did commit  the  alleged  offense  and  imposed
nonjudicial punishment consisting of forfeiture of $50.00 per month for  two
months and 14 days extra duty. He  appealed  the  punishment;  however,  his
appeal was denied.

On 14 March 1980, the commander notified him that based  on  his  misconduct
on 4 March 1980, the suspension of his reduction in grade was  vacated,  and
the reduction duly executed.

He was tried by a special court-martial and pled guilty  to  the  charge  of
violating Article 134 of the UCMJ.  Specifically, for wrongfully  possessing
one gram of marijuana on 23 March 1980.  He was found guilty of  the  charge
and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), three months confinement  at
hard labor, and forfeiture of $100.00  per  month  for  three  months.   The
sentence was adjudged on 3 April 1980

The DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
issued in conjunction with his 2 December 1980 discharge indicates  that  he
received an Other Than  Honorable  Conditions  (OTHC)  discharge.   However,
based on the final Special Court-Martial Order #33, dated  2 December  1980,
and the original sentence, his DD Form 214 should reflect that  he  received
a BCD.  He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 11 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  of
injustices.  Furthermore, he provided no other facts warranting  an  upgrade
of his discharge.  AFPC/DPPRS states  that  the  applicant’s  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  indicates  that  he
received a UOTHC discharge; however,  based  on  the  final  Special  Court-
Martial Order #33, dated 2 December 1980, and the original sentence, his  DD
Form 214 should reflect that he received a BCD.   A  discharge  of  OTHC  is
less severe than a BCD and they defer to the  Board  to  determine  if  this
should  be  changed  in  accordance  with  documentation  contained  in  his
records.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 30 May 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 an error or injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the  applicant’s
discharge.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of  record  and  noting
the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that a  change  to
his characterization of  service  is  warranted.   The  evidence  of  record
indicates that the applicant was convicted by  a  special  court-martial  of
wrongfully possessing one gram of marijuana on 23 March 1980.   No  evidence
has been presented which would lead  us  to  believe  that  the  applicant’s
service  characterization  was  improper.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, we adopt the Air  Force  rationale  and
conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting  the  relief  sought  in
this application.

4.  As indicated above, we found no  basis  warranting  an  upgrade  of  the
applicant’s discharge.  With respect to the  incorrect  characterization  of
service reflected of the  applicant’s  DD  Form  214,  his  record  will  be
administratively corrected by the appropriate Air Force  office  of  primary
responsibility to properly  reflect  that  he  was  discharged  with  a  Bad
Conduct discharge.

________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2003-01414
in Executive Session on 10 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair