RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01498
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be issued separate DD Forms 214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty, to reflect each period of honorable service he served  and
that  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  database   be   updated
accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1991 he was court-martialed and received a dishonorable  discharge  after
13 years of flawless service. In the appellate process,  his  discharge  was
changed to a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  Shortly thereafter,  he  received
his DD Form 214 in the mail.  In Section 18 of the DD  Form  214  it  states
that there was "Continuous Honorable Active Military Service from 28 Jul  78
through 31 May 88."  How is it that he can be given a BCD, but at  the  same
time have continuous honorable service?  He should have  received  at  least
three DD Forms 214, each reflecting his term of  service  and  the  type  of
discharge received.  After his initial  enlistment  he  was  discharged  and
signed another contract.  After that period of service,  he  was  discharged
again and signed  another  contact.   He  received  an  Honorable  Discharge
certificate after each period of service and should have been  issued  a  DD
Form 214.  The DD Form 214 he received gives the appearance that his  entire
period of service ran continuously.

In support of his request applicant provided a personal  statement,  a  copy
of his DD Form 214, his Statement of Service, and copies  of  his  Honorable
Discharge certificates.  His complete submission, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  28
Jun 78.  He was honorably discharged  on  30  Aug  82  for  the  purpose  of
immediate reenlistment on 31 Aug 82.  He was honorably discharged on 31  May
88 for  the  purpose  of  immediate  reenlistment  on  1  Jun  88.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 84.

In  March  1992,  applicant  was  tried  by  general  court-martial  for   a
specification of rape, three specifications of  assault  upon  a  female,  a
specification of fraudulently obtaining allowances, and a  specification  of
wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman not his  wife.   He  plead
not guilty and was found guilty of all  specifications.   Sentence  adjudged
on 14 Mar 92 was a  dishonorable  discharge,  confinement  for  five  years,
reduction to airman basic, and a fine of $5,666.00.   On  11  Apr  97,  upon
appellate review, the findings of guilty to the specification of  rape  were
set aside and dismissed.  His dishonorable discharge was changed  to  a  bad
conduct discharge  (BCD)  and  the  remaining  findings  and  sentence  were
affirmed.  Applicant was discharged on 16 Apr 97.  He  served  16  years,  8
months, and 8 days on active duty.  The period 14 Mar 92 through 24  Mar  94
was considered time lost.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that in accordance with AFI  36-
3202, Separation Documents, "If a member is being separated from one  status
to continue in another because of immediate reenlistment or enlistment  then
a DD Form 214 is not issued"; Table 4,  rule  11,states  the  "Date  Entered
Active Duty This Period" for airmen is the  date  entered  Active  Duty  for
this period of continuous active duty"; and  Table  4,  Rule  30  states  to
"Include continuous honorable active military service for a member  who  has
previously reenlisted without  being  issued  a  DD  Form  214  and  who  is
separated with any  discharge  characterization  except  honorable.   'From'
date is the date of initial entry into active duty,  or  the  first  day  of
service for which a DD Form 214 was not previously issued; the 'To' date  is
the date before the current enlistment."

His discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority  and  was
well within  the  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
Applicant did  not  submit  ay  new  evidence  of  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates his previous contentions and adds that if  one  reviews
his DD Form 214, Section 24 will show  that  his  total  cumulative  service
characterization as "Bad Conduct."  No one will review the remarks  section.
 In fact he has been offered  no  less  than  five  prominent  positions  of
employment.  With each a copy of his DD Form 214 was requested.   When  they
review his DD Form 214 and see BCD, he was denied the positions.    When  he
points out that the  remarks  section  and  shows  his  Honorable  Discharge
certificates, the prospective employers ask how can he be given  a  BCD  but
at the same time have continuous honorable service.   He  attempted  to  get
Virginia state license plates that veterans are authorized, but  was  denied
because is DD Form 214 indicated BCD.

His complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
presented, we are not persuaded that issuance of additional DD Forms 214  is
warranted.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us  to  believe
that the appropriate standards were not applied in this case,  that  he  was
denied any of the rights and privileges he was entitled to, or that  he  was
treated differently than other similarly situated  individuals.   Therefore,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of
primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.
In  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
01498 in Executive Session on 1 Oct 03, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Jul 03, w/atchs.




                                   FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                                   Panel Chair