RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00184
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 July 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UTOHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered mental duress during  his  divorce  which  caused  the  problems
leading to his discharge.  Only recently has his mental state stabilized  in
order to address his discharge

In support of his application, he provided a DD Form  293,  Application  for
the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed  Forces  of  the  United
States and a copy  of  his  divorce  decree.   A  copy  of  the  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 October 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  at  the
age of 24 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4)  effective
and with a date of rank of 1 October  1982.   The  applicant  received  five
enlisted performance reports during the period  1  October  1979  through  1
October 1984 with overall ratings of eight, eight, eight, eight, and six.

On 21 March 1984, his commander notified the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment for the applicant’s failure to go at the  time
prescribed to his appointed  place  of  duty.   The  applicant  acknowledged
receipt, chose not to consult counsel, waived his right to  demand  a  trial
by  court-martial,  chose  not  to  make  an  oral  presentation;   however,
submitted a written presentation in his own behalf.  After  considering  the
applicant’s written submission, the commander imposed punishment  consisting
of base restriction for 14 days and 14 days of extra  duty.   The  applicant
chose not to appeal the punishment received.

On 8 June 1984, his commander  notified  the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment for making himself absent from  his  place  of
duty,  on  or  about  16  May  1984,  without  authority.    The   applicant
acknowledged receipt, consulted counsel, waived his right to demand a  trial
by  court-martial,  chose  not  to  make  an  oral  presentation;   however,
submitted a written presentation in his own behalf.  After  considering  his
written  submission,  the  commander  imposed   punishment   consisting   of
reduction in grade to airman first class, forfeiture of $300 per  month  for
two months, and correctional custody for a period of  30  consecutive  days.
The portion of punishment which provided for forfeiture of  $300  per  month
for two months was suspended until 7 November 1984, at which  time;  it  was
remitted without further action.  On 22 June 1984, the  applicant  submitted
a  written  statement  appealing  the  punishment.   On  9  July  1984,  his
commander denied the applicant’s appeal.

On 19 October 1984, his squadron commander preferred  court-martial  charges
against the applicant for one specification  of  larceny  of  an  automobile
valued at $7,130.28 in violation of Article 121 of  the  Uniformed  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ).  On 28 November 1984, additional  charges  included
larceny of furniture valued in excess of $700 in violation  of  Article  121
of the UCMJ, wrongful use of marijuana in violation of Article 112a  of  the
UCMJ, and absent without leave authority in violation of Article 86  of  the
UCMJ.

On 10 November 1984, after consulting counsel, the  applicant  requested  he
be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 11 December  1984,  his
squadron commander recommended disapproval of  the  applicant’s  request  to
the group commander.   The  group  commander  disagreed  with  the  squadron
commander, and recommended  approval  of  the  applicant’s  request  to  the
discharge authority, stating the applicant’s discharge would be in the  best
interest of the Air Force.  On 18  December  1984,  after  the  staff  judge
advocate found the case to be legally sufficient,  the  discharge  authority
approved  the  applicant’s  request  for  discharge  and  directed  a  UOTHC
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge on 27 December 1984  with
a separation code of KFS (request for discharge in lieu of trial  by  court-
martial) and a reenlistment code of 2B (discharged under general  or  other-
than-honorable conditions).  He served five years, one month, and nine  days
on active duty.  The applicant’s time lost was  48  days  due  to  AWOL  and
military confinement.

On 23 September 1986, the AFDRB held a  personal  hearing  in  New  York  to
consider the applicant’s request to upgrade  his  discharge  from  UOTHC  to
fully honorable.  The AFDRB denied the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that based on the  file  in  the
applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with  the
procedural and substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation  in
affect at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the  discretion
of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
previously reviewed and considered all the facts of record and  concluded  a
change in the type or nature of his  discharge  was  not  warranted.   DPPRS
stated that the applicant did  not  submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   It  is
DPPRS’s opinion that the applicant provided no facts warranting a change  to
his character of service.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  4
March 2005 for review and response 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the  information  in  the  discharge  case  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The  characterization  of  discharge
which was issued at the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances of  his  separation  and  we  do  not  find  the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant  attesting  to  a
successful post-service adjustment in the years since  his  separation,  we
are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore,  we  conclude
that no basis exists upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  his
request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 12 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
            Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
            Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2005-00184
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Feb 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 05.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                                   Chair