RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-02833
            INDEX CODE 107.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1979 under-other-than-honorable-conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He wants to be entitled to all  his  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs
(DVA) benefits. He was a perfect soldier for the first four  years  of
his enlistment and has not been convicted of any serious crime. He was
acquitted by his Spanish trial.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  17  Sep  71.  His
performance reports from 17 Sep 71 through 2 Nov  75  reflect  overall
ratings of 9, 8, 8, 9, 8, and 7. During the period in question, he was
a sergeant assigned as a pay technician at the 401st Tactical  Fighter
Wing (401 TFW) at Torrejon AB, Spain.

On 7 Jan 76, his commander imposed Article 15 punishment in  the  form
of a 60-day restriction to base, forfeiture of $150 pay per month  for
two months, and a suspended reduction from sergeant  to  airman  first
class (A1C) until 30 Jun 76 for breaking restriction to the base on or
about 18 and 28 Nov 75. [Note: The available records do  not  indicate
what prompted the original base restriction.] An  indorsement  by  the
commander  to  the  nonjudicial  punishment  indicated  the  delay  in
processing the case and imposing punishment  was  due  to  the  second
restriction violation and the applicant’s being incarcerated in Madrid
Spanish prison hospital for detoxification treatment and not returning
to duty from holiday pass until 7 Jan 76.  The applicant did not  make
an oral or written presentation, and did not appeal the punishment.

On 14 May 76, the suspension was vacated because the  applicant  broke
restriction on 1 May 76 and wrongfully possessed a  military  ID  card
with his picture glued over another military member’s photograph.  The
applicant was reduced to A1C with a date of rank (DOR) of  7  Jan  76.
However, further investigation disclosed he also broke restriction  to
the base on 8  May  76.  The  applicant  submitted  no  materials  for
consideration. On 2 Jun 76, he was reduced  to  the  grade  of  airman
basic, but the execution providing for reduction below  the  grade  of
airman was suspended until 25 Nov 76. His new DOR was 2 Jun 76. On  16
Jun 76, the applicant admitted his guilt but appealed  the  punishment
on the basis of financial hardship. His appeal was denied  on  23  Jun
76.

The applicant was placed in pre-trial confinement on  27  Nov  76  and
charged on 29 Nov 76 for breaking base  restriction.  He  was  further
charged with assault for striking a technical sergeant (TSgt)  on  the
back of the neck with his hand on 9  Dec  76  and  escaping  from  the
lawful custody of the TSgt. No further documentation is available  but
the applicant’s lost time continued until 3 Feb 79.

The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic on 1 Mar  79
with a UOTHC characterization after five years  and  three  months  of
active service, having 708 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRSP  believes  the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation
and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant did
not substantiate any errors or injustices and  his  appeal  should  be
denied.

A complete copy of the 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 31 Oct 03 for review and comment 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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded  his  discharge  should   be   upgraded.   The   applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these  assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence
of record. The applicant was given suspended reductions,  but  despite
these  disciplinary  efforts  at  rehabilitation,  he  continued   his
misbehavior. He has provided no evidence his discharge for  misconduct
was not supported by his own actions or that he  has  since  become  a
productive  member  of  society.   We   therefore   agree   with   the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  not  sustained  his
burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view  of
the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we  find  no
compelling reason to recommend granting the relief sought on the basis
of either merit or clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

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 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02833 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Oct 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 21 Oct 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair