RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01536

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is trying to get a job with the county, city or state.  When he was
asked why he was discharged, he told  them  the  reason  and  type  of
discharge he had.  Most places can accept what he had done,  they  can
see that he has learned from his mistakes  and  have  moved  on.   His
first job after  his  discharge  was  at  Miami  Valley  International
Trucks.  The employer was hesitant on his interview, but he was honest
and up front with them.  He was  employed  with  them  for  15  years.
After 13 years there, he realized that he wasn’t going anywhere, so he
started looking for a better job, basically, with the city, county and
state.  He was interviewed by both the city and the  county,  and  was
turned down by the city because of the type of discharge he  had.   He
is not sure about why the county did not hire him.

In November of 2002, he did accept a position with a private business;
this employer did not ask about his discharge.  He did put it  on  the
application along with  the  branch  of  service  and  the  length  of
service.  While his current job is good, he did fall short of his goal
for a job with the city, county and state.  He has the experience  and
certifications for those jobs, but some people see his past and  judge
him on a mistake, but he has learned from his mistakes and has  proven
that over the last fifteen years.  He also will not be dishonest about
the mistakes he has made.

The purpose of this  letter  is  to  request  to  have  his  discharge
upgraded to a general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge.   Feel
free to access any personal information the Board may have on him over
the past fifteen years since he was discharged, and they will  see  he
has learned from  his  mistakes.   He  would  greatly  appreciate  the
Board’s consideration on upgrading his discharge status.

In support of his application, he submits a personal letter.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
20 May 1985.  The commander recommended the  applicant  be  discharged
under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (resignation for  the  good  of  the
service) with service characterized  as  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC).  He was discharge on 8 April 1988 in the grade  of
airman first class.  He served 2 years, 10 months and 19 days of total
active service.

On 28 July 1987, the applicant was convicted by Special  Court-Martial
for illegal use of LSD and  marijuana.   He  pleaded  guilty  to  both
charges.  He as sentenced to a bad conduct  discharge,  forfeiture  of
$438 pay per month for six months,  confinement  for  six  months  and
reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.   However,  upon  review,  the
Convening  Authority  dismissed  the  LSD  charge  and  modified   the
sentence.  On appeal, the Air Force Court of Military Review threw out
the sentence due to pre-trial legal  error,  but  left  the  marijuana
conviction and ordered a rehearing on the sentence only.  By the  time
this decision was reached, the applicant was  on  appellate  leave  in
Kettering Ohio.  The base determined a rehearing was impracticable and
on 10 March 1988, member requested a discharge in  lieu  of  trail  by
court-martial under AFR 39-10, Chapter  4.   On  11  April  1988,  the
convening authority (Court Martial Order #6)  approved  the  discharge
under Chapter 4 and overturned the results of the July Special  Court-
Martial.  On 31 April  1988,  the  Discharge  Authority  approved  the
discharge and ordered an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC)
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon documentation
in file, 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.  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.
Accordingly, they recommend  his  records  remain  the  same  and  his
request be denied.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  stated  that  he
made a mistake 16 years ago, and has learned from  that  mistake.   He
thinks over the past 16 years, he has proven that he is an  upstanding
citizen and has never repeated the mistakes of his past.  Instead,  he
has learned from his mistakes and has become a better  person  because
of them.  Unfortunately, not everyone can see this, and he has  found,
as he stated in his first letter, as he is trying to improve his  life
and set higher goals for himself by obtaining better employment.   But
when someone sees that he has an under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge, he is still being judged for a mistake he  made  16
years ago.  Had he known 16 years ago  that  this  error  in  judgment
would still be haunting him today, yes, he  would  have  pursued  this
matter sooner.  He thinks he has more than proven  himself  as  having
learned from his mistake.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  We find no improperiety  in  the
characterization  of   applicant's   discharge.    It   appears   that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in  effecting  the
separation, and we do not  find  persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded  all  the
rights to which entitled at  the  time  of  discharge.   We  conclude,
therefore,  that   the   discharge   proceedings   were   proper   and
characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the  existing
circumstances. Although the  applicant  states  that  he  has  been  a
productive member of society for over 16 years, he  has  not  provided
sufficient information of post-service activities and  accomplishments
for us to conclude that his discharge  should  be  upgraded  based  on
clemency.  Should he provide such documentation, we would  be  willing
to reconsider his appeal.  In view of the above, we find no basis upon
which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________




THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of a 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-
01536 in Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jun 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Jul 03.






      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair