RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00478
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 AUG 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  believes  the  punishment  was  more  severe  than  the  charges
warranted.  He knows what he did was wrong and he did  steal  a  few
locks, however; he did not steal as many as he was charged with.  He
believes if he was allowed to remain in the Air Force he could  have
been rehabilitated.  He  accepted  the  discharge  not  knowing  the
ramifications to his future.  He  requests  leniency  based  on  his
youth and immaturity at the time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 March 1985, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 21 July 1987, court-martial charges were  preferred  against  the
applicant for stealing 64 Sergeant Master keyed  locks  of  a  total
value of about $4,800.00, the property  of  the  United  States  Air
Force.

On 11 August 1987,  the  applicant  after  consulting  with  counsel
submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
 The applicant also acknowledged that if the request was approved he
could be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.

A legal review was conducted  in  which  the  staff  judge  advocate
recommended the applicant’s request for discharge be  approved  with
service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

On  17  September  1987,  the  discharge  authority   approved   the
applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by  court-martial
and directed the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 21  September  1987,  in  the  grade  of
airman first class with a UOTHC discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-
10 Administrative Separation of Airmen  (request  for  discharge  in
lieu of trial by court-martial.)  He served two  years,  six  months
and two days of active service.

Applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  (AFDRB)
to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to a  general  discharge.   The
AFDRB, on 24 March 1989,  denied  the  applicant’s  request  for  an
upgrade of his discharge.

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).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant did not  provide  any  facts  to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
25 March 2005, for  review  and  response.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 20 April 2005, the Board staff requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation regarding his post-service  activities.   As  of  this
date, the applicant has not responded (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 of timely file.

3.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of an error  or  an  injustice.   However,
after noting the applicant's complete submission we agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its  rationale
as the basis for our decision  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden that he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  The applicant acknowledges he stole some locks, however,
he contends the discharge he received was too harsh considering  his
youth  and  immaturity.   We  note  the  AFDRB  denied  his   appeal
concluding the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was  within
the discretion of the discharge authority.  The  applicant  has  not
presented persuasive evidence that the discharge authority  exceeded
his authority when he accepted the applicant’s request for discharge
lieu of court-martial.  Therefore, based on the documentation in the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge
and the characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The applicant has
not established to our satisfaction that he has been the  victim  of
an  error  or  injustice.   Although  the  applicant  has  requested
clemency, he failed to respond to a request to provide documentation
regarding his post-service accomplishments and activities.  However,
should the applicant provide documentation pertaining to  his  post-
service accomplishments and activities, this Board would be  willing
to review the materials for possible reconsideration of his  request
based on clemency.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2005-00478 in Executive Session on 19 May and 10 June 2005  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                       Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Mar 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr 05, w/atch.




                                        RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                        Panel Chair