RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01335
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 OCT 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should  be  upgraded  because  his  conduct  and  his
efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks  were  good.   He
constantly received 8 and 9 ratings and his last airman performance
report recommended that he be promoted ahead of his  peers  because
of his increased responsibilities  as  NCOIC  of  the  Combat  Arms
section.

He  received  letters  of   recommendation   for   his   additional
contribution  to  base  and  interservice   activities.    He   was
instrumental in establishing a motorcycle safety course on base.

He has been a good citizen since his discharge  and  completed  his
Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in history  and  received  a  teaching
certificate in secondary social studies.  He is  a  member  of  the
Army National Guard and has earned the rank of E-6.

His punishment was too harsh.  With the exception of that one  week
of bad judgment his military record was exemplary.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of his college transcript; several letters of recommendation
from supervisors and principals, and a co-worker,  and  a  criminal
record check.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13  Sep  79  in  the
grade of airman basic.  He reenlisted on 13 Aug 85 for a period  of
four years.

A resume of applicant’s airman performance  reports  (APR)  profile
follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION


           10 Jan 85                                    9
                 10 Jan 86                                    9
                 15 Oct 86                                    8
                 15 Oct 87                                    9
                 15 Oct 88                                    9
                 26 Apr 89                                    9

On 10 Aug  89,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for a Pattern of Misconduct.
 The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

     On or about (o/a) 4 Jun 89, applicant  committed  adultery  by
having sexual intercourse with the wife of a military member  under
his direct supervision.  For this offense, he received  an  Article
15; his punishment consisted of reduction in grade to sergeant  (E-
4), with a new date of rank (DOR) of 26 Jul 89, and  forfeiture  of
$250 pay per month for one month.

     O/a 5 and 8 Jun 89, he failed to obey a lawful  order  not  to
have or make any contact with the same woman.  Applicant repeatedly
made contact and again had sexual intercourse with her.  For  these
offenses, he received an Article 15 on 26 Jul 89.   His  punishment
consisted of vacation of his NCO status on 26 Jul 89.

After consulting with  counsel  and  having  been  advised  of  his
rights, applicant submitted a  conditional  waiver  of  his  rights
associated  with  an   administrative   discharge   board   hearing
contingent on his receipt of no  less  than  a  general  discharge.
On 1 Sep 89, the  Command  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  case
legally  sufficient  to  support  discharge.   He  recommended  the
conditional waiver be accepted and applicant be  separated  with  a
general discharge, without probation or rehabilitation (P&R).

On 13 Sep 89, the discharge authority  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged from the service for misconduct/conduct  prejudicial  to
good order and discipline and furnished a general discharge.

On 20 Sep 89, applicant was discharged under the provision  of  AFR
39-10, by reason of Misconduct –  Pattern  Conduct  Prejudicial  to
Good Order and Discipline, with service  characterized  as  general
(under honorable conditions).  He was credited with  10  years  and
8 days of active duty (all periods of service).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 21 Jul 05, that, on the
basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record
(Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based  on
documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted  applicant
did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing  and  provided
no other facts warranting a change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter dated 28 Aug 05, applicant provided a  brief  summary  of
his accomplishments since his discharge (Exhibit G).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, a majority of  the  Board  did
not find his arguments  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the
rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.   The  evidence  of  record
reflects the applicant’s discharge was based on his receipt of  two
Article 15s for two incidents of sexual intercourse with  the  wife
of a military member under his direct supervision and  his  failure
to obey a lawful order not to have any contact with the woman.  The
majority of the Board found no evidence has  been  presented  which
would  lead  them  to  believe   that   the   applicant’s   service
characterization was improper.  The  Board  noted  the  applicant’s
prior  honorable  period  of  service,  the  letters  of  character
reference submitted with his appeal, and his accomplishments  since
leaving the service.  Nonetheless, in view of  the  seriousness  of
the offenses committed during the period of service  under  review,
the majority of the Board is not persuaded that an upgrade  of  the
characterization of his discharge is  warranted  on  the  basis  of
clemency.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to  the
contrary, the majority of the Board adopts the Air Force  rationale
as the basis for its conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice and concludes that no basis  exists
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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-2005-01335 in Executive Session on 13 September 2005, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

By a majority vote, the members voted to deny applicant's  request.
Mr.  Hartley  voted  to  grant  the  applicant's  request  and  has
submitted a minority report which is at Exhibit H.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, FBI Report, dated 21 Jul 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Aug 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Minority Report, dated 25 Oct 05.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2005-01335




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 20
September 1989, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable
Discharge Certificate.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency





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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the applicant’s
request should be denied in its entirety.

      After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of
the applicant’s case, I believe clemency would be appropriate.  The
record indicates that, except for his misconduct which led to two Article
15s and subsequent discharge, the applicant’s duty performance was good
to excellent.  Additionally, the applicant served honorably for over nine
years before he committed the offenses which led to his separation.


      Certainly I do not condone the behavior which led to the
applicant’s non-judicial punishment and subsequent discharge.
Nevertheless, in view of the absence of any other derogatory information
in his record and the letters of character reference submitted in his
behalf, it appears the applicant has overcome the behavioral traits which
led to his discharge, and has been a responsible citizen and productive
member of society since his separation.  Therefore, I believe it would be
an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse effects of the
under honorable conditions (general) discharge he received over 15 years
ago and it is my decision that his discharge be upgraded to fully
honorable on the basis of clemency.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency