RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02827
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 MAR 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since his discharge, he has completed a Bachelor  of  Science  (BS)
Degree  in  Sociology,  with  concentration  in  Criminal  Justice.
Although, he has completed his degree, the  discharge  in  question
has hindered his ability to gain satisfactory employment  pertinent
to his field of study.

Prior to his UOTHC  discharge,  he  had  three  previous  honorable
discharges, which he believes far outweigh the one mistake he made.
 A record of exemplary service from Dec 73 through Apr 84  that  he
feels  was  not  taken  into  consideration  at  the  time  of  his
discharge.  He was under a lot of mental stress and  couldn’t  cope
with things in a rational and sane manner, as  a  result  of  being
repeatedly contacted by his ex-wife and her  attorney  about  child
support.  He informed his squadron; while he was home on  leave  he
became sick and was diagnosed with  an  inner  ear  problem.   Upon
returning to the base two days later, he  reported  to  the  flight
surgeon and was placed on  sick  leave.   He  again  contacted  his
squadron and they informed  him  that  he  would  be  receiving  an
Article 15 and he snapped.  He  does  not  believe  the  Air  Force
considered all the factors that were affecting his life at the time
of  the  incident,  along  with  his  accomplishments   since   his
discharge, he now request his discharge be upgraded.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty, dated 28 Jan 88; a copy of his BS  Degree  Certificate
(Sociology); Certificate of Completion, Criminal  Justice  Program,
dated 7 Aug 04, and a copy of a court order, dated 7 Jan 96.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12  Dec  73  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1).  Applicant  had  continuous  honorable
active military service until his discharge of 23 Mar 84.   He  was
credited with 10 years, 3  months,  and  12  days  of  active  duty
service.

He enlisted on 2 Jan 87 for a period of four years in the grade  of
staff sergeant.

On or about, 18 Sep 87, applicant was absent without  leave  (AWOL)
from his appointed place of duty until 20 Sep 87.   Applicant  went
AWOL from 21 Sep 87, until his status was upgraded to  deserter  on
21 Oct 87.  He was apprehended and returned to military control  on
20 Nov 87.  Applicant was in pre-trial confinement from 20  Nov  87
to 18 Dec 87.

The specific facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are
unknown inasmuch as the discharge correspondence is not available.

On 20 Jan 88, the discharge authority, after carefully  considering
the applicant’s request for discharge, the  recommendation  of  the
squadron commander, and the  staff  judge  advocate;  approved  the
applicant’s request for discharge  in  lieu  of  court-martial  and
directed the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under other
than honorable conditions.

On 28 Jan 88, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR  39-10,
with an under other than honorable conditions  discharge.   He  was
credited with 9 months and 27 days of active duty for  this  period
(excludes 3 months from 18  Sep  87  –  17  Dec  87  for  AWOL  and
confinement).

On  5  Mar  92,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and denied the applicant’s request  to  have  his  UOTHC
discharge  upgraded  to  honorable.   They  determined   that   the
misconduct of the  applicant  was  a  serious  breech  of  military
discipline and rendered him subject to trial by court-martial.  The
negative  aspects  of  the  misconduct,  in  the  applicant’s  case
desertion by an NCO, far outweighed any positive  aspects  of  good
duty performance.  They concluded that the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority
and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process
(see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 9 Nov 05, that, on  the
basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record
(Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
Based on the documentation from the previous review  by  the  AFDRB
and the limited documentation  on  file  in  the  master  personnel
record, 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:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 7 Oct 05 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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 note that  the
specific facts surrounding the  circumstances  of  the  applicant’s
discharge are not available.  However, based upon  the  presumption
of regularity in the conduct of governmental  affairs  and  without
evidence to the contrary,  we  must  assume  that  the  applicant's
discharge  was  proper   and   in   compliance   with   appropriate
regulations.  The  Board  noted  the  applicant’s  prior  honorable
periods of  service  and  his  accomplishments  since  leaving  the
service.  Nonetheless, in view of the seriousness of  the  offenses
committed during  the  period  of  service  under  review  and  the
findings of the AFDRB, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of  the
characterization of his discharge  is  warranted.   Notwithstanding
the above, the applicant did provide limited information pertaining
to his activities since leaving the service.  If he were to  submit
additional post-service documentation, the Board may be willing  to
reconsider his appeal as a matter of clemency.  Therefore, based on
the available evidence of record, we find no basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider 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-2005-02827 in Executive Session on 14 February 2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.
    Exhibit E.  FBI Report, dated 9 Nov 05.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair