RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02456
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the time period in question, he was 25 years of age and made a grave
mistake in judgment as an officer.   Although  he  was  encouraged  not  to
cooperate with the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), he chose to  tell
the truth about his indiscretions with the airman.  The airman he  had  the
relationship with lied and  grossly  exaggerated  his  actions.   His  base
commander told him the airman’s statement was so specific that she must  be
telling  the  truth.   He  received  an  Article  15  and  was   ultimately
discharged.  His career up to that point had been exemplary.

He did not fight this injustice at the time because his actions during  the
time period in question were wrong and he did not  want  to  embarrass  his
family with a possible court-martial.  Secondly, he knew that  by  fighting
the charges against him, he would lose because he was being threatened with
a court-martial and his admissions were enough to find him guilty.

He is now 42 and has an  amazing  family.   Since  his  discharge,  he  has
completed his coursework for a Master’s in Criminal Justice.  He has been a
police officer for the Illinois State University  for  16  years.   He  has
learned from his mistakes and is a model citizen.  Except for his  lack  of
judgment during the incident time, he was proud of the time he spent in the
Air Force.

The applicant's complete submission, with an attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, prior to enlisting in the Air Force, served  in  the  United
States Marine Corps Reserve from 6 June 1983 to 2 March 1984.

On 5 July 1985, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force  (RegAF)  as  a
staff  sergeant  (SSgt)  for  a  period  of  four  years.   The   applicant
subsequently entered Officer Training School (OTS).  On 3 October 1985,  he
was honorably discharged to accept a commission.  He  was  appointed  as  a
second lieutenant (2Lt), Reserve of the Air Force, on  4 October  1985  and
was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 4 October 1985.  He  was
promoted 4 October 1987 to first lieutenant (1Lt).

On 9 March 1988, the applicant received  an  Article  15  on  or  about  21
October 1987 to on or about 1 January  1988  for  wrongfully  socially  and
sexually fraternizing with an enlisted person.  For  this  misconduct,  his
punishment consisted of forfeiture of $850.00 of  pay  per  month  for  two
months.

On 29 March 1988, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
recommend him for discharge for wrongful fraternization  with  an  enlisted
member under his supervision, under the provisions of Air Force  Regulation
(AFR) 36-2, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7d.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel
and that military legal counsel  had  been  obtained  for  him;  to  submit
statements in his own behalf; or tender his resignation.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  letter  and  that
military counsel was made available to assist him.

A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge  advocate  found  the
case legally sufficient to support the discharge action.

On 12 April 1988, the  applicant  submitted  his  resignation  in  lieu  of
further action under AFR  36-12.   He  further  acknowledged  that  if  his
resignation was accepted he would be discharged  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge unless the Secretary of the Air Force  (SAF)
determined he should receive an honorable discharge.

On 29 June 1988, by direction  of  the  President,  the  SAF  accepted  the
applicant’s resignation  and  directed  he  be  discharged  with  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 29 July 1988, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of  AFR
36-12,  Voluntary   Resignation:    Misconduct,   Moral   or   Professional
Dereliction:  Serious or Recurring with a  general  discharge.   He  served
2 years, 9 months and 26 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data  furnished  they  were
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

Applicant’s OPR profile as a lieutenant is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                  12 May 86       1-1-1
                  12 Nov 86       1-1-1
                  12 Mar 87       1-1-1
                  30 Sep 87       1-1-1
                  14 Mar 88       2-3-3

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  states  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of  his
discharge.  Based upon the documentation  in  the  applicant's  file,  they
believe his discharge was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements  of  the  discharge  regulations  of  that  time.   Also,  the
discharge was within the  sound  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his  discharge.
Based  on  the  information  and  evidence  provided,  they  recommend  the
applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  states  fraternization
between officers and enlisted was prevalent at all  levels  in  Rhein  Main
during that time period.  He also provided two photographs of officers  and
enlisted personnel fraternizing at a social gathering (Exhibit F).

On 13 October 2004,  the  Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provided
documentation pertaining to his activities since leaving  military  service
(Exhibit G).

The  applicant  further  states  his  performance  before  and  after   the
misconduct was exemplary (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly reviewing  the  evidence
of record, the Board is not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.
 Based on the documentation in the  applicant's  records,  it  appears  the
processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge  were
appropriate and accomplished in accordance  with  Air  Force  policy.   The
Board has considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and in view
of the egregiousness of the misconduct while the applicant  was  on  active
duty, on balance, does not believe clemency is warranted.  The  applicant’s
fraternization with a subordinate prejudiced good order and  discipline  of
the unit and compromised his effectiveness as  an  officer.   Although  the
applicant has provided some statements concerning post-service conduct, the
Board finds these statements insufficient to  warrant  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge on the basis of clemency.  However, should he provide  statements
from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to  his  good  character
and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service conduct,  this
Board  would  be   willing   to   review   the   materials   for   possible
reconsideration.  Therefore, the Board does not recommend approval based on
the current evidence of record.

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(s) 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-2004-
02456 in Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Oct 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair