RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01042
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  31 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His narrative reason for discharge reflects “Sexual  Deviation”  as  grounds
for a general discharge.  He is  not  a  sexual  deviant  nor  has  he  been
involved in  any  homosexual  or  deviant  behavior.   His  designation  was
political.  The mistakes he made then were that of a misguided youth and  he
has accepted his naiveté.  However, his behavior and character bears  a  one
time indiscretion.  The punishment was more severe than the infraction.   He
further indicates  he  is  a  contributing  member  of  society  and  is  an
auxiliary police officer waiting sworn status.  He volunteers with  the  Red
Cross and is a youth martial arts instructor.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 February  1979  in  the
grade of airman basic.

On 22 November 1982, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the  following:   He  was,  at
Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philippines, on or about 14  November  1982,
derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligently  failed  to
remain awake, as it was his duty to do.  In violation of the Uniformed  Code
of Military Justice, Article 92.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial, he did not submit  a  written  presentation  in  his  behalf;
however, he requested to make an oral presentation.

On 24 November 1982, the applicant was found guilty  by  his  commander  who
imposed the following punishment:  a forfeiture of $100.00.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 13 December 1983, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the  following:   He  did,  at
Oscan Air Base, Republic of Korea, on or  about  6  December  1983,  without
authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to  his  appointed  place  of
duty, to wit:  Aero Medical Evacuation Mission 1282.  In  violation  of  the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial, submitted a written presentation in his own  behalf  and  did
not request to make an oral presentation.

On 19 December 1983, the applicant was found guilty  by  his  commander  who
imposed the following punishment:  a forfeiture of $150.00.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 6 April 1984, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon  him  for  the  following:   He  did,  at
Angeles City, Republic of the  Philippines,  on  or  about  8  January  1984
wrongfully commit an indecent, lewd, and lascivious act with a  sergeant  by
placing his penis in  her  mouth,  in  violation  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice, Article 134.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial, did not submit a written  presentation  in  his  own  behalf;
however, he requested to make an oral presentation.

On 13 April 1984, the applicant  was  found  guilty  by  his  commander  who
imposed the following punishment: a reduction  in  grade  from  sergeant  to
airman first class, with  a  new  date  of  rank  of  13 April  1984  and  a
forfeiture of $390.00 per month for two months.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.



On 18 May 1984, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for sexual  deviation.   Specifically,
he did on or about 8 January 1984, wrongfully commit an indecent, lewd,  and
lascivious act with a sergeant by placing his penis in her mouth.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
to present his case before an administrative  discharge  board,  and  submit
statements in his own behalf; or waive the  above  rights  after  consulting
with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant offered  a  conditional  waiver
of his rights associated with  an  administrative  discharge  board  hearing
contingent upon receiving no less than a general discharge.

In  the  commander’s  recommendation  for  discharge  action  the  commander
indicated before recommending the discharge the applicant was  counseled  by
himself,  his  supervisor,  and  first  sergeant.   The  commander   further
indicated he did not recommend probation  and  rehabilitation  according  to
Chapter 7.

On 14 June 1984,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the  applicant’s
conditional waiver be accepted and he be separated with a general  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 25 June 1984, the discharge authority  accepted  the  conditional  waiver
and approved the applicant’s discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 2 July 1984, in the grade of airman first  class
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the  provisions
of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Sexual Deviation).   The  applicant  served  five
years, three months and six days of total active military service.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative  Report,  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating 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.   The
discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts  warranting
a change to his character of service.


The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 April 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 26 April 2005, the Board staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F).   As  of  this  date,  the
applicant has not responded.

On 4 May 2005, the Board staff provided the  applicant  the  opportunity  to
respond to the FBI report within 20 days (Exhibit G).  As of this date,  the
applicant has not responded.

_________________________________________________________________

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  an  error  or  injustice.   The  Board  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
the majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of  the
Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   The  applicant
has failed to demonstrate  the  commander  exceeded  his  authority  or  the
reason for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  Absent evidence  to
the contrary, the Board presumes responsible officials  applied  appropriate
standards  in  effecting  the  separation,  and  the  Board  does  not  find
persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent  regulations  were  violated  or   the
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of
discharge.  Therefore, the majority of the Board finds no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based on clemency,  the  majority  of  the  Board  also  finds  insufficient
evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on  that
basis.

_________________________________________________________________



THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
01042 in Executive Session on 8 June 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

By a majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial.   Mr. Long  voted  to
approve the applicant’s request and does  not  wish  to  submit  a  Minority
Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 January 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 April 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 April 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 April 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 May 2005, w/atch.




                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2005-01042





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found the applicant had
not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the
case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency