RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04016
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  THE AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After five years of service the Air  Force  decided  he  had  a  personality
disorder.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 February  1978  in  the
grade of airman  basic  for  a  period  of  four  years  and  was  honorably
discharged on 15 March 1981.  On 16 March 1981, the applicant reenlisted  in
the grade of senior airman for a period of six years.

On 5 November 1982, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment  upon  him  for  the  following:   He  did  at
Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, on or about 28 October 1982, was  derelict
in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to report to  a
base wide mobility exercise with the proper requirements of dog  tags,  shot
record, leave and earnings statement, raincoat, field jacket gloves,  and  a
proper hair cut, as it was his duty to do.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his  right  to  a  trial  by
court-martial, he did not request to  make  an  oral  presentation  and  did
attach a written presentation in his behalf.

On 19 November 1982, he was found guilty by his commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  A  reduction  in  grade  to  airman  first  class,  a
forfeiture  of  $25.00  of  pay.   The  execution  of  the  portion  of  the
punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman  first  class
was suspended until 18 May 1983, at which time, unless  the  suspension  was
sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

Court-Martial charges were preferred against the  applicant  on  16 December
1982.  A DD Form 458, Charge  Sheet,  indicates  he  was  charged  with  the
following:

            Specification 1:  On or about 28 August 1982, the applicant  did
steal a bicycle, of a value of about $90.00, the property of an airman.

            Specification 2:  On or about 28 August 1982, the applicant  did
steal a bicycle, of a value of about $100.00, the property of a sergeant.

            Specification 3:  On or about 1 February 1982  to  30  September
1982, the applicant did steal tools, of some  value,  the  property  of  the
United States Government.

            Specification 4:  On or about 24 September 1982,  the  applicant
wrongfully appropriated a motorbike,  of  a  value  of  about  $325.00,  the
property of an airman first class.

On 12 January 1983, the applicant requested he be discharged  from  the  Air
Force according to AFR 39-10, Chapter 4, in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.

On 14 January 1983, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for Discharge  in  Lieu  of  Trial  by
Court-Martial.  The commander indicated although  the  applicant’s  offenses
were serious and did warrant punishment, he felt  a  discharge  under  other
than  honorable  conditions  would  be  of  a  substantial  benefit  to  the
government in terms of time and money.  The applicant seemed  to  have  lost
touch with reality and did not  seem  to  be  aware  of  what  was  actually
happening.  Under his state of mind, the applicant  was  highly  susceptible
to severe mental problems.

The commander indicated in  his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  the
applicant did not have a mental disease or defect that caused  him  to  lack
the substantial capacity or to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness)  of
the acts, or to conform to the law (AFM  160-42).   The  applicant  had  the
capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and to  assist  in  the
defense.

On 14 January 1983, the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  approved  the  request  for
Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.

On 20 January 1983, the Staff Judge Advocate conducted a  legal  review  and
recommended the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.

On 25 January 1983,  the  discharge  authority  approved  applicant’s  UOTHC
discharge.

On 11 February 1983, the applicant was discharged in  the  grade  of  senior
airman, with service characterized as UOTHC under the provisions of AFR  39-
10 (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial  by  Court-Martial).   He  served
five years and nine days of total active military service.

On 6 July 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered  and
denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his UOTHC discharge to  honorable.
 They indicated  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant  was  provided  full
administrative due process.  There exists no legal or  equitable  basis  for
upgrade of discharge (Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  the  discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation.  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.  He has not filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 February 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant and counsel for review and response within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

On 10 March 2004, the applicant was provided the opportunity to  respond  to
the FBI investigation within 14 days.  As of  this  date,  no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  has  failed  to
demonstrate that the commander exceeded his authority  or  that  the  reason
for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  The  Board  believes  that
responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in  effecting   the
separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that the applicant was  not  afforded  all  the
rights to which entitled at  the  time  of  discharge.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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-
04016 in Executive Session on 7 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                 Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 November 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Investigation.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 January 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 February 2004.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 March 2004.




                       JOSEPH A. ROJ
                       Panel Chair