RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03162
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY DUE DATE:  12 FEBRUARY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  has  fulfilled  the  required  punishment  handed  down  by  the   trial
commission.  His service up to his trial  was  exemplary,  outstanding,  and
without error.  He would like to serve in the military again.

In support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his
separation document (DD Form 214).   The  applicant's  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 August 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  at  the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  four  (4)
years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  senior  airman  (E-4)
effective and with a date of rank of 13 February 2000.

The  following  is  a  resume  of  Enlisted  Performance   Reports   (EPRs),
commencing with the report closing 12 April 1999.

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

      12 April 1999          5
      28 January 2000        5
      12 October 2000        5
      19 October 2001 (Referral)        2

Information extracted from the applicant’s  discharge  case  file  indicates
the applicant was tried and convicted by  a  special  Court-Martial  of  two
specifications of larceny and one specification of attempted larceny  on  17
October 2001.  His sentence included hard labor without  confinement  for  3
months, and reduction to the grade of airman (E-3).

On 7 March 2002,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  she  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the  provisions  of
AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 for misconduct,  specifically,  commission  of  a
serious offense.  The basis for this action was the offense  for  which  the
military court convicted the applicant.  The applicant was  advised  of  his
rights, and after consulting military legal counsel  submitted  a  statement
on his own behalf.  On 25 March 2002, a legal review of the  discharge  case
file by the staff judge advocate  found  the  file  legally  sufficient  and
recommended the applicant be discharged with  a  general  discharge  without
probation and rehabilitation.  On 25 March  2002,  the  discharge  authority
approved the recommendation  for  discharge  and  directed  he  be  given  a
general discharge.  The applicant was discharged  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge on 27 March 2002.  He had served 4  years,  7
months and 15 days on active duty.

On 21 October 2002, the applicant submitted a  similar  appeal  to  the  Air
Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB).   On  19  February  2003,  the  AFDRB
determined that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation,  and  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority.  AFDRB concluded there was  no  legal
or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel  records,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation, and within the discretion of the discharge  authority.
 DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or  identify  any
errors or  injustices  that  occurred  during  the  discharge  process,  and
provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge.    DPPRS’s
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 22 October 2004.  As of this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    The   applicant   believes   his
administrative discharge was improper because he had completed the  adjudged
sentence of a military court for his  conviction,  which  thereafter  formed
the basis for the initiation of the administrative proceedings.  We  do  not
agree.   To  the  contrary,  there  was  no  bar  to   the   initiation   of
administrative  discharge  proceedings  in  this  case  merely  because  the
sentence of the military court chose not to exercise its option  to  include
a punitive discharge as part of the sentence.  This matter was addressed  in
the legal review of  the  discharge  proceedings  and  the  file  was  found
legally sufficient to support the proposed separation.   The  applicant  has
provided no evidence that would lead us to believe  his  substantial  rights
were violated, or, his commanders abused their discretionary authority  when
they  initiated  the  discharge  proceedings  and  determined  the  negative
aspects of his record  outweighed  the  positive  aspects  to  a  sufficient
degree to warrant an under honorable conditions discharge.  This  being  the
case, we find no basis on which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 7 April 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Member
            Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2004-01235:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 2004, with attachment.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Oct 2004.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 2004.




      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair