RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00404
                                        INDEX CODE:  A74.00, A92.01
                                        COUNSEL:  None

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 August 2006


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had an outstanding service record for over 16 years.

In support of  his  application,  he  provided  a  copy  of  his  separation
document, an enlistment document, and extracts of documents associated  with
his  request  for  discharge  in  lieu  of  trial  by  court-martial.    The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
18 August 1970.  He continued to serve on active  duty,  entering  his  last
enlistment on 3 October 1986, when he reenlisted for a period  of  4  years.
Prior to the events under review,  he  was  progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective and with  a  date  of  rank  of  1
January 1985.  Subsequent to his promotion to that grade, he  received  five
Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for the periods  ending  17 October  1985,
22 May 1986, 15 March 1987, 24 September 1987, and  24  September  1988,  in
which the overall evaluations were 9, 9, 7, 9 and 8, respectively.

During his last enlistment, the applicant  received  nonjudicial  punishment
under Article 15, UCMJ,  based  on  his  commander’s  determination  he  was
incapacitated for proper performance of his duties as a result  of  wrongful
previous overindulgence of intoxicating  liquor  on  or  about  14  November
1986.  The applicant was reprimanded and  ordered  to  forfeit  $300.00  per
month for two months.  However, the portion of the punishment in  excess  of
$150 of his pay per month for two months was suspended.

On  12  January  1989,  the  applicant’s   commander   imposed   nonjudicial
punishment  on  the  applicant  under  Article  15,  UCMJ,  based   on   the
determination  that  the  applicant,  who  was  the  senior  noncommissioned
officer in a vehicle at the time of an accident in which  said  vehicle  was
involved, and having knowledge of the accident, wrongfully  left  the  scene
of an accident without making the driver’s identity  known.   The  applicant
was reduced in grade to technical sergeant.

A urine specimen provided by the applicant in January 1989  tested  positive
for cocaine.  Based on this information, on 5 May 1989,  the  applicant  was
charged with wrongful use of cocaine between on or  about  20  January  1989
and 25 January 1989.  On 17 May 1989, the case was  referred  for  trial  by
general court-martial.  On 23 June 1989,  after  consulting  military  legal
counsel, the applicant requested he be administratively discharged  in  lieu
of trial by court-martial.  The applicant acknowledged he could  receive  an
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge but,  based  on  his
almost 19 years of  service,  requested  he  be  considered  for  a  general
discharge.  In a letter dated 13 July 1989, the applicant  requested  he  be
considered for lengthy service probation.   In  an  undated  recommendation,
the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant’s request for  discharge
in lieu of trial be approved and he be discharged with  a  UOTHC  discharge.
In a legal review of the discharge  case  file,  the  staff  judge  advocate
assigned to the staff of the Division commander (convening commander)  found
the file legally sufficient and  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged
with a UOTHC discharge.  On 5 July 1989, the Division commander  recommended
the applicant’s request for discharge  be  approved  and  he  be  discharged
under other than honorable conditions.  An assistant  staff  judge  advocate
assigned to the staff of the discharge  authority  found  the  file  legally
sufficient  and  recommended  the  applicant’s  request  be  approved   with
issuance of a UOTHC.  On 17 July 1989, the discharge authority approved  the
recommended separation and directed the applicant be discharged under  other
than   honorable   conditions   without   the   offer   of   probation   and
rehabilitation.  The case  was  thereafter  forwarded  for  lengthy  service
probation and rehabilitation consideration with a recommendation  that  such
probation also be  denied.   On  11  August  1989,  the  Major  Air  Command
Director of General Law found the file legally  sufficient  and  recommended
lengthy service probation be denied.  On 22 September  1989,  the  Secretary
of the Air Force denied lengthy service probation and directed the  approved
administrative discharge be executed.

On 16 October 1989, the applicant was discharged under other than  honorable
conditions in the grade of technical sergeant  by  reason  of  discharge  in
lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 19  years,  1  month  and  29
days on active duty.   A  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2B  was
assigned.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
indicated that, based on the  information  provided,  they  were  unable  to
locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended the application be denied.  DPPRS indicated that  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of  the  discharge  regulation,  and,  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  DPPRS stated  the  applicant  submitted  no  evidence,
identified  no  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in   the   discharge
processing, and provided no facts warranting a change to  his  character  of
service (see Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 25 March 2005.  In a letter to the applicant dated  11
April 2005, he was invited to provide information  pertaining  to  his  post
service activities (Exhibit E).  This office has  received  no  response  to
the above correspondence.

________________________________________________________________

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.   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 the conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  has  provided  no
evidence  showing  the  information  in  his  records  is   erroneous,   his
substantial  rights  were  violated,  or   his   commanders   abused   their
discretionary  authority.   In  addition,  the  applicant  has  provided  no
evidence attesting to a successful post-service adjustment.  In the  absence
of such evidence, we do not believe a recommendation  for  relief  based  on
clemency  is  appropriate.   Accordingly,  in  view  of   the   above,   the
application 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 25 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Mar 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 05 and
                 11 Apr 05.




                             JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                             Panel Chair