RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02884
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that the Air Force was unjust.  He never stole  any  money
($100 is all  that  is  missing  from  previous  date  report  in  the
commissary at Goodfellow AFB, TX).

Applicant did not submit 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 26 August 1985, in  the
grade of airman airman basic for a  period  of  four  years.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade  of  airman  first  class   (E-3),
effective and with a date  of  rank  of  26  December  1986.   He  was
promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) on 26  August  1988.   He
received three Airman Performance Reports  (APRs)  closing  25  August
1986, 25 August  1987  and  25  August  1988,  in  which  the  overall
evaluations were “9”, “9” and “8.”  He was honorably discharged on  13
June 1989.  He served three years, nine months and 18 days  on  active
duty.  On 14 June 1989, he reenlisted in the grade  of  senior  airman
for a period of four years.  He was appointed a sergeant on  1  August
1989.  On 5 July 1990, his noncommissioned officer  (NCO)  status  was
vacated and he reverted to the grade of senior airman  because  of  an
Article 15 (dated 27 June 1990) he received for failing to complete  a
job-oriented training class.  His  NCO  appointment  was  restored  on
2 January 1991.

On 6 January 1992, court-martial charges  were  referred  against  the
applicant  for  stealing  $100  from  the  Air  Force  Commissary   at
Goodfellow AFB TX in  July  1991  and  for  making  a  false  official
statement.  It was indicated that the applicant made a false  official
statement during the investigation that he had counted  the  money  in
the commissary safe prior to opening on 15 July 1991, which he knew to
be  false.   Applicant  consulted  with  a  civil  attorney   and   on
14 February 1992, he requested a discharge in lieu of trial by  court-
martial with the understanding he could  receive  a  UOTHC  discharge.
Military legal services reviewed the case and found it to  be  legally
sufficient and recommended acceptance of  his  request  for  discharge
with a UOTHC discharge.  Additionally, his  commanders  recommended  a
UOTHC discharge.  The Discharge Authority approved the  discharge  and
ordered a UOTHC discharge on 16 March 1992.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of sergeant, was  discharged
from the Air Force on 23 April 1992 under the provisions of AFR  39-10
(Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial) with an  under  other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.   He  served  six  years,
seven months and 28 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   sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review
Board (AFDRB)  denied  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  upgrade  of
discharge on 25 January 1996.  A copy of the AFDRB hearing  record  is
attached.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the reason he decided not to go to court was
because the attorney had his mind already made up and he felt that  he
was not going to defend him properly.  He also feels that the military
attorney gave the impression that  she  was  in  accordance  with  the
commander’s decision.  He believes that the Air Force made  a  lot  of
mistakes.  Members of the military legal services are working for  the
government and he believes they made a bad  recommendation.   He  will
keep fighting to get his discharge upgraded because he  believes  that
his  character  is  worthy  to  be  admired.   He  believes  that  his
principles are much better than many honorable people  in  offices  of
the government.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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.  Evidence has not been  presented
that would lead us to  believe  that  the  applicant’s  discharge  was
erroneous or unjust.  Based on  the  contents  of  a  Security  Police
Report of Investigative, court-martial charges were preferred  against
the applicant.   The  applicant  thereafter  requested  administrative
separation in lieu of trial.  The applicant requests relief from  this
Board, asserting he was not guilty.  In cases of this nature,  we  are
not inclined to disturb  the  discretionary  judgments  of  commanding
officers absent a strong showing of  abuse  of  that  authority.   The
applicant has provided no documentary evidence  showing  his  superior
commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority,  his  substantial
rights were violated, he was miscounseled, or his decision to  request
separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was coerced in  any  way.
In the absence of  such  evidence,  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 19 November 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                       Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Oct 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 13 Oct 03.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair